Abetment and Criminal Conspiracy under English and Indian lawNishkaPrajapati
1. Explain the provisions relating to abetment in English and Indian law.
2. Proof of conspiracy and its admissibility.
3. Difference between abetment and conspiracy.
4. Sections 34, 109 and 120-A.
Abetment and Criminal Conspiracy under English and Indian lawNishkaPrajapati
1. Explain the provisions relating to abetment in English and Indian law.
2. Proof of conspiracy and its admissibility.
3. Difference between abetment and conspiracy.
4. Sections 34, 109 and 120-A.
When you're using Instant Checkmate to run background checks on individuals, you may come across some specific terms in your reports that you might not be familiar with. To help you better understand exactly what you're seeing in your reports, we've compiled a list of the most frequently used and related terms in the personal criminal background check industry.
www.instantcheckmate.com/glossary
CHAPTER 7 Criminal Law and CybercrimeNew York Police Departmen.docxbissacr
CHAPTER 7 Criminal Law and Cybercrime
New York Police Department, Times Square, New York City
Criminal cases make up a large portion of cases tried in U.S. courts. Criminal cases are bought against persons for violating federal, state, and local laws. Suspected criminals are given many rights by the U.S. Constitution and state constitutions. Parties in the United States are free from unreasonable searches and seizures of evidence, and any evidence obtained illegally is considered tainted evidence and cannot be used in court. People who are suspected of a criminal act may assert their right of privilege against self-incrimination and may choose not to testify at any pretrial proceedings or at trial. Parties have a right to a public trial by a jury of their peers. In addition, if convicted of a crime, the criminal is free from cruel and unusual punishment.
Learning Objectives
After studying this chapter, you should be able to:
1. List and describe the essential elements of a crime.
2. Describe criminal procedure, including arrest, indictment, arraignment, and the criminal trial.
3. Identify and define business and white-collar crimes.
4. List and describe cybercrimes.
5. Explain the constitutional safeguards provided by the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
Chapter Outline
1. Introduction to Criminal Law and Cybercrime
2. Definition of a Crime
1. CONTEMPORARY ENVIRONMENT • Criminal Acts as the Basis for Tort Actions
3. Criminal Procedure
4. Common Crimes
1. ETHICS • Murder Conviction Upheld on Appeal
5. Business and White-Collar Crimes
1. BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT • Corporate Criminal Liability
6. Cybercrimes
1. DIGITAL LAW • The Internet and Identity Theft
2. Case 7.1 • United States v. Barrington
7. Fourth Amendment Protection From Unreasonable Search and Seizure
1. Case 7.2 • U.S. SUPREME COURT CASE • Navarette v. California
2. Case 7.3 • U.S. SUPREME COURT CASE • Maryland v. King
3. Case 7.4 • U.S. SUPREME COURT CASE • Riley v. California and United States v. Wurie
8. Fifth Amendment Privilege Against Self-Incrimination
1. Case 7.5 • Ragland v. Commonwealth of Kentucky
9. Other Constitutional Protections
1. GLOBAL LAW • France Does Not Impose the Death Penalty
“It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.”
—Sir William Blackstone Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765)
Introduction to Criminal Law and Cybercrime
For members of society to coexist peacefully and for commerce to flourish, people and their property must be protected from injury by other members of society. Federal, state, and local governments’ criminal laws are intended to afford this protection by providing an incentive for persons to act reasonably in society and imposing penalties on persons who violate the laws.
There can be no equal justice where the kind of trial a man gets depends on the amount of money he has.
Justice Black
Griffin v. Illinois 351 U.S. 12, 76 S.Ct. 585, 1956 U.S. Lexis 1059 (1956)
The Uni.
Unit V Significant U.S. Supreme Court Rulings and the Imp.docxmarilucorr
Unit V: Significant U.S. Supreme
Court Rulings and the Impact on
the Juvenile Justice System in
America
Introduction
• We are now starting Unit V: Significant U.S. Supreme Court
Rulings and the Impact on the Juvenile Justice System in
America.
• So far, we have covered and discussed the historical
background of juvenile delinquency and the juvenile justice
system in the United States, criminological theories that help
to expand our understanding of juvenile delinquency, the
complex relationship between police officers and juveniles,
juvenile gangs, and key actors that help play crucial roles as
they relate to the structure of the juvenile court system.
Unit V: U.S. Supreme Court Rulings
• If you will recall, you learned about juvenile defense attorneys,
juvenile prosecuting attorneys, and the juvenile court judge in
the previous unit.
• In this unit, you will take what you have learned and expand
your knowledge, exploring U.S. Supreme Court cases that
helped define and direct juvenile corrections, juvenile defense
attorneys, juvenile prosecuting attorneys, and juvenile court
judges.
Unit V: U.S. Supreme Court Rulings
• Before we begin, watch the video linked
below that continues the story of Little
John, a juvenile.
https://online.columbiasouthern.edu/csu_c
ontent/courses/emergency_services/bcj/bcj
2201/15K/video/unitv_video.mp4
• Click here to access the transcript for this
video.
https://online.columbiasouthern.edu/csu_content/courses/emergency_services/bcj/bcj2201/15K/video/unitv_video.mp4
https://online.columbiasouthern.edu/CSU_Content/courses/Emergency_Services/BCJ/BCJ2201/15K/transcripts/BCJ2201_UnitV_Transcript.pdf
https://online.columbiasouthern.edu/csu_content/courses/emergency_services/bcj/bcj2201/15K/video/unitv_video.mp4
https://online.columbiasouthern.edu/csu_content/courses/emergency_services/bcj/bcj2201/15K/video/unitv_video.mp4
Consider the Following
You will want to start thinking about this question as you read
through the following U.S. Supreme Court decisions and cases:
• How does this case directly relate to juvenile defense attorneys
and juvenile court judges who preside over juvenile court
cases?
Court Cases
The information below provides a brief description of some of
the cases we will explore.
Figure 1: U.S. Supreme Court decisions impacting juvenile court system.
(“U.S. Supreme Court Cases,” 1999)
https://www.ncjrs.gov/html/ojjdp/9912_2/juv2.html
https://www.ncjrs.gov/html/ojjdp/9912_2/juv2.html
Kent v. United States
So, let’s begin by examining the first landmark case you will learn
about: Kent v. United States. Before we can examine the case,
we need to know the background and historical makeup of the
case.
• In 1961, Morris Kent was a 16-year-old juvenile who was
charged with rape and robbery.
• While in custody, Kent confessed to the criminal charges and
crimes against him.
Kent v. United States
• Kent’s defense lawyer filed a request ...
The Stand Your Ground Law and The Routine Activity Theorygirlsaint
A presentation exploring how The Routine Activity Theory is proven by the increase in crimes, that The Stand Your Ground law gives motivated offenders the opportunity to commit without penalty.
Douglas E. Metzger was convicted in the municipal court of the cit.docxmadlynplamondon
Douglas E. Metzger was convicted in the municipal court of the city of Lincoln, Nebraska, of violating § 9 .52.100 of the Lincoln Municipal Code. The District Court, Lancaster County, affirmed the District Court judgment. Metzger appealed to the Nebraska Supreme Court. The Supreme Court reversed and dismissed the District Court's judgment. KRIVOSHA, CJ.
FACTS Metzger lived in a garden-level apartment located in Lincoln, Nebraska. A large window in the apartment faces a parking lot that is situated on the north side of the apartment building. At about 7:45 A.M. on April 30, 1981, another resident of the apartment, while parking his automobile in a space directly in front of Metzger's apartment window, observed Metzger standing naked with his arms at his sides in his apartment window for a period of five seconds. The resident testified that he saw Metzger's body from his thighs on up.
The resident called the police department, and two officers arrived at the apartment at about 8:00 A.M. The officers testified that they observed Metzger standing in front of the window eating a bowl of cereal. They testified that Metzger was standing within a foot of the window, and his nude body, from the mid-thigh on up, was visible. The pertinent portion of § 9.52.100 of the Lincoln Municipal Code, under which Metzger was charged, provides as follows: "It shall be unlawful for any person within the City of Lincoln ... to commit any indecent, immodest or filthy act in the presence of any person, or in such a situation that persons passing might ordinarily see the same."
OPINION
The ... issue presented to us by this appeal is whether the ordinance, as drafted, is so vague as to be unconstitutional. We believe that it is. Since the ordinance is criminal in nature, it is a fundamental requirement of due process of law that such criminal ordinance be reasonably clear and definite.
The ordinance in question makes it unlawful for anyone to commit any "indecent, immodest or filthy act." We know of no way in which the standards required of a criminal act can be met in those broad, general terms. There may be those few who believe persons of opposite sex holding hands in public are immodest, and certainly more who might believe that kissing in public is immodest. Such acts cannot constitute a crime. Certainly one could find many who would conclude that today's swimming attire found on many beaches or beside many pools is immodest. Yet, the fact that it is immodest does not thereby make it illegal, absent some requirement related to the health, safety, or welfare of the community.
The dividing line between what is lawful and what is unlawful in terms of "indecent," "immodest," or "filthy" is simply too broad to satisfy the constitutional requirements of due process. Both lawful and unlawful acts can be embraced within such broad definitions. That cannot be permitted. One is not able to determine in advance what is lawful and what is unlawful. We therefore believe t ...
Similar to Serena Essapour | Criminal Law III Week 3 Summer 2010 (16)
ALL EYES ON RAFAH BUT WHY Explain more.pdf46adnanshahzad
All eyes on Rafah: But why?. The Rafah border crossing, a crucial point between Egypt and the Gaza Strip, often finds itself at the center of global attention. As we explore the significance of Rafah, we’ll uncover why all eyes are on Rafah and the complexities surrounding this pivotal region.
INTRODUCTION
What makes Rafah so significant that it captures global attention? The phrase ‘All eyes are on Rafah’ resonates not just with those in the region but with people worldwide who recognize its strategic, humanitarian, and political importance. In this guide, we will delve into the factors that make Rafah a focal point for international interest, examining its historical context, humanitarian challenges, and political dimensions.
Responsibilities of the office bearers while registering multi-state cooperat...Finlaw Consultancy Pvt Ltd
Introduction-
The process of register multi-state cooperative society in India is governed by the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002. This process requires the office bearers to undertake several crucial responsibilities to ensure compliance with legal and regulatory frameworks. The key office bearers typically include the President, Secretary, and Treasurer, along with other elected members of the managing committee. Their responsibilities encompass administrative, legal, and financial duties essential for the successful registration and operation of the society.
Military Commissions details LtCol Thomas Jasper as Detailed Defense CounselThomas (Tom) Jasper
Military Commissions Trial Judiciary, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Notice of the Chief Defense Counsel's detailing of LtCol Thomas F. Jasper, Jr. USMC, as Detailed Defense Counsel for Abd Al Hadi Al-Iraqi on 6 August 2014 in the case of United States v. Hadi al Iraqi (10026)
In 2020, the Ministry of Home Affairs established a committee led by Prof. (Dr.) Ranbir Singh, former Vice Chancellor of National Law University (NLU), Delhi. This committee was tasked with reviewing the three codes of criminal law. The primary objective of the committee was to propose comprehensive reforms to the country’s criminal laws in a manner that is both principled and effective.
The committee’s focus was on ensuring the safety and security of individuals, communities, and the nation as a whole. Throughout its deliberations, the committee aimed to uphold constitutional values such as justice, dignity, and the intrinsic value of each individual. Their goal was to recommend amendments to the criminal laws that align with these values and priorities.
Subsequently, in February, the committee successfully submitted its recommendations regarding amendments to the criminal law. These recommendations are intended to serve as a foundation for enhancing the current legal framework, promoting safety and security, and upholding the constitutional principles of justice, dignity, and the inherent worth of every individual.
A "File Trademark" is a legal term referring to the registration of a unique symbol, logo, or name used to identify and distinguish products or services. This process provides legal protection, granting exclusive rights to the trademark owner, and helps prevent unauthorized use by competitors.
Visit Now: https://www.tumblr.com/trademark-quick/751620857551634432/ensure-legal-protection-file-your-trademark-with?source=share
How to Obtain Permanent Residency in the NetherlandsBridgeWest.eu
You can rely on our assistance if you are ready to apply for permanent residency. Find out more at: https://immigration-netherlands.com/obtain-a-permanent-residence-permit-in-the-netherlands/.
Serena Essapour | Criminal Law III Week 3 Summer 2010
1. Criminal Law III
Week 3 Summer 2010
John C. Schick
209.235.2937
jschick@humphreys.edu
jcschick@earthlink.net
2. People v. Foster
• Foster speaks to another about a plan to do a
robbery.
• The person to whom he proposes the idea goes to
the police, and has no intent to agree to the plan.
• If only one person has a plan to do a crime, is there a
conspiracy?
3. Foster, cont.
• The court looks to the changes in the law on
conspiracy that Illinois has undertaken.
• The new statute states that a person commits a
conspiracy when he agrees with another.
• The statute deleted the words “two or more
persons.”
4. Foster, concluded
• Illinois does have a solicitation statute, with
penalties very similar to those for conspiracy.
• So it would make little sense for the changes
made to reflect a legislative intent to adopt
the “unilateral” theory of conspiracy.
• Since a defendant gets the benefit of
uncertain language, the court affirms the
dismissal of the charges.
• Foster will still face the possibility of
prosecution under the solicitation section.
5. Foster definition
A person commits conspiracy when, with intent
that an offense be committed, he agrees with
another to the commission of the offense.
6. Kilgore v. State
• Kilgore is convicted of murdering Roger Norman.
• Evidence at the trial showed a conspiracy to kill
Norman.
• In fact, there were three separate agreements
involving different parties, all geared to
accomplish this crime.
7. Kilgore, cont.
• The first effort involved Carden, Benton, and
Oldaker.
• The second effort involved Carden, Kilgore, and
Berry.
• The third effort involved Carden, Kilgore and
Price.
8. Kilgore, cont.
• The conspiracy involved here is often called a
wheel conspiracy.
• There is one central figure who is the hub, here
the person who wanted Norman killed.
• The participants in separate conspiracies may not
know each other or have a part in the separate
agreements. They are spokes which are not
connected.
9. Kilgore, concluded
• Because the conspiracy involving Kilgore did not
involve the earlier ones that involved others, the
evidence admitted regarding B was improper
• Thus the conviction for murder must be reversed.
• Note that Georgia law merges the conspiracy and
the completed crime so there can only be a
charge of murder and not one of conspiracy.
10. Braverman v. US
• Although there is only one actual conspiracy, there
are many goals attached to that one.
• Government wanted to punish for each separate act
that was done.
• Court concludes that with only one goal, there can
only be one punishment.
11. Braverman definition
The gist of the crime of conspiracy as defined by
the statute is the agreement or confederation of
the conspirators to commit one or more unlawful
acts.
12. Ianelli v. US
• The charges involved conspiring to violate a federal
gambling statute.
• The statute said that it was a crime for more than
five persons to conduct a gambling business.
• Defendants were convicted and sentenced BOTH for
the substantive offense and for the conspiracy.
13. Ianelli, cont.
• Does Wharton’s rule apply, which would limit the
offense to merely the substantive offense?
• Wharton’s rule suggests that in order to show a
conspiracy there must be MORE than the
minimum number needed to commit the
substantive crime.
• What the rule does is to make one crime out of the
otherwise separate crime of conspiracy and the
substantive offense.
14. Ianelli, continued
• The theory is that since conspiracy law exists
because of the danger of many persons being
involved in crime, there must be more than the
minimum number for the substantive offense, or
else the danger does not really exist.
• This law’s effects go beyond the participants and
there is a reason to allow both offenses to be
punished.
15. Ianelli, concluded
• The purpose of this particular law was to go after
organized crime and the effects this had on
interstate commerce
• The dangers presented by a combination of
people in gambling is legislatively noted and thus
an exception to Wharton’s rule is noted in
upholding the conviction
16. Gebardi v. US
• This case involves an indictment against two people.
• The offense is a violation of the Mann act, which made
it a crime to take a woman across interstate lines for
immoral purposes.
• The purpose of the law is to protect the woman, yet
she appears to be a co-conspirator in the charges.
17. Gebardi, concluded
• Since the woman cannot be convicted under the
Mann act, can there be a conspiracy violation of the
act?
• If she is not a party to anything illegal, the man cannot
by himself commit conspiracy.
• Thus the case must be dismissed.
18. People v. Sconce
• A conspiracy to commit murder involves Sconce,
Estephan, Garcia and Dutton.
• Before the substantive crime occurs, Sconce
decides he wants out.
• Trial court dismissed the conspiracy count.
• The people contend this is error.
19. Sconce, concluded
• California law says withdrawal is effective only if
done BEFORE an overt act is done.
• Once an agreement comes into place AND an
overt act is done, the crime is complete
• In this case, there had been an overt act.
• Thus the withdrawal is too late and the crime of
conspiracy has been committed.
20. State v. Ward
The common law had four categories of
criminal wrongdoers.
•The actual perpetrator(Principal 1st
degree)
•Aider and abettor at the scene (Principal in 2d
degree)
•Accessory before the fact- Aider who is NOT
present at crime
•Accessory after the fact-aider after the crime is
done
21. Basis of Accomplice Liability
• When analyzing the liability of the accomplice, it
is important to remember that the liability is
based on the act of the principal.
• That is why we call the liability of the accomplice
DERIVATIVE LIABILITY.
22. Elements
• An aider and abettor must have knowledge of the
criminal purpose of the perpetrator.
• And with an intent or purpose either of
committing or of encouraging or facilitating
commission of the offense the perpetrator
intends to commit.
23. State v. Hoselton
• Kevin was convicted based on his role as a lookout
to a group of kids who did a burglary.
• The basis for his conviction is his own voluntary
statement.
• Kevin did not see his accomplices and did not know
what they were doing.
• A true lookout who is acting to alert his
confederates so they may do the crimes that he
knows are taking place is an ACCOMPLICE.
24. Hoselton, cont.
• What evidence is there of his awareness of the
intent of his confederates?
• He was never told what they were to do and he
got none of the proceeds of the crime.
• This does NOT make him either a lookout or an
ACCOMPLICE.
25. What sort of intent is needed?
• There must be an intent to aid the party who does
the crime.
• There must also be an intent that this aid result in
the successful completion of the crime—that is
there must be the mens rea or intent to aid the
crime that the perpetrators are accomplishing.
26. People v. Lauria, again
• This time we look at the facts to see if Lauria was an
accomplice.
• The acts done were an ongoing business of
prostitution.
• Lauria knew of the operation and in fact used the
services of one of the women.
• Is his knowledge enough to make him an
accomplice?
27. Riley v. State
• Riley and Portalla opened fire on some folks and
the victims were injured.
• The charge filed was first-degree assault.
• The evidence was unclear which of the two was the
actual shooter who caused the injuries.
• Riley was convicted as an accomplice and not as a
principal (shooter).
28. Riley, cont.
• Riley says the jury instruction given was in error.
• The instruction did not correctly state the mental
state for an accomplice.
• First degree assault required proof that the actor
was reckless in regard to the resulting criminal act.
• A prior case suggested that the state had to prove
the act of an accomplice was intentional.
29. Riley, concluded
• This means that the accomplice would seemingly
want the result of the act by his principal to occur.
• Riley would not fit that mold since he did not do the
injurious act.
• The court decides that the prior case was error and
assesses liability.
• Based on MPC 2.06(4) the court concludes that
even if the result is NOT intended, the person who
acts with the same mental state as the principal will
be deemed an accomplice.
30. The meaning of Riley case
• Put in its simplest terms, the case means that a
person CAN be an accomplice to an unintended
crime.
• The mental state of recklessness is present for
both the actor and the accomplice.
• Thus both can be guilty based on derivative
liability.
31. State v. Linscott
• Linscott is convicted of one count of murder and one
count of robbery.
• He went with others who were planning on robbing a
drug dealer.
• He knew of the plan and was to receive a portion of
what they thought they would get.
32. Linscott, cont.
• Fuller, a fellow robber, shot at and killed Grenier.
• Linscott argues that he had no intent to kill, which
Fuller did.
• He was merely aiding in a robbery.
• State did NOT pursue this on a felony murder rule
theory since the statute that spelled out accomplice
liability carried a longer sentence, which the state
wanted from Linscott.
33. Linscott, concluded
• The robbery contemplated that a foreseeable
consequence could be a killing.
• This rule requires the application of an objective
standard.
• The subjective belief of Linscott is not as
important as the objective analysis.
• This means that objectively viewed, Linscott was
liable since he wanted the robbery, which was the
precursor of the murder.
34. Meaning of natural and
probable consequence rule
• Did the primary party (perpetrator) commit the
target offense?
• Did the jury decide that the other party was an
accomplice in the target offense?
• Did the primary party commit another crime
beyond the target crime?
• Was that later crime one that was a natural and
probable consequence of the first act?