DOCSLIB.ORG

The Mental State Requirement for Accomplice Liability in American Criminal Law

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

South Carolina Law Review Volume 60 Issue 2 Article 1 2008 The Mental State Requirement for Accomplice Liability in American Criminal Law John F. Decker DePaul University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/sclr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation John F. Decker, The Mental State Requirement for Accomplice Liability in American Criminal Law, 60 S. C. L. Rev. 239 (2008). This Article is brought to you by the Law Reviews and Journals at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in South Carolina Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Decker: The Mental State Requirement for Accomplice Liability in American THE MENTAL STATE REQUIREMENT FOR ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY IN AMERICAN CRIMINAL LAW JOHN F. DECKER* 1. INTROD U CTION .......................................................................................... 239 II. A FACIAL REVIEW OF THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE ................................. 244 A. Category I Statutes: "Specific Intent". .............................................. 245 B. Category II Statutes: "Statutorily PrescribedMental State" ........ 247 C. Category III Statutes: "Naturaland Probable Consequences........ 249 D. Statutes Requiring "Knowledge" Rather than "Intent" ................... 250 E. Statutes Lacking Any Mental State Requirement ............................... 251 F. Statutes Allowing for a Defense for the Victim of a Crime ................ 253 G. Statutes with Incidental Party Provisions.......................................... 253 H. Statutes with Withdrawal Provisions................................................. 254 I. Statutes with Liability for Persons Exempt from the Substantive Offense ................................................. 254 J. Statutes Containing an Innocent Agent Provision ............................. 255 K. Statutes Containing a Legal Duty Provision...................................... 256 L. Statutes Allowing for Liability of an Accomplice Without the Conviction of the Perpetrator......................................... 257 M. Statutes Only Pertainingto Felonies ................................................. 258 N. Statutes with Provisions Unique to Their ParticularState ................ 258 0. Statutes that Make Reference to the Common Law Distinctionsof Principalsand Accessories ........................................ 260 P. Statutes that Intertwine Criminal Facilitationor Conspiracy ........... 260 III. STATES WITH CASE LAW FOLLOWING THE CATEGORY I APPROACH: SPECIFIC IN TEN T ....................................................................................... 262 A . F lo rida ............................................................................................... 262 B . M ississippi .......................................................................................... 264 C . N ew M exico ........................................................................................ 265 D . O regon ...............................................................................................267 E . P ennsylvania...................................................................................... 270 F . T ex a s .................................................................................................. 2 7 2 * Emeritus Professor of Law, DePaul University College of Law. J.D., Creighton University Law School; LL.M., J.S.D., New York University Law School. The author wishes to acknowledge the outstanding research assistance provided by Senior Research Assistant Kimberly Musick (Class of 2009) as well as the excellent support provided by Patricia Nikolaros, Christopher Reeder, and Alan Williams (Class of 2007); Jeffrey Alexander, Michael Kurtz, and Suresh Pillai (Class of 2008); and Lisa Duarte, Kathryn Idzik, Adam Sedia, Melissa Skinner, and Jason Roach (Class of 2009). Published by Scholar Commons, 1 South Carolina Law Review, Vol. 60, Iss. 2 [], Art. 1 238 SOUTH CAROLINA LAW REvTEw [VOL. 60:237 IV. STATES WITH CASE LAW FOLLOWING THE CATEGORY II APPROACH: STATUTORILY PRESCRIBED M ENTAL STATE ............................................. 275 A. "Codified" Category II Approach ..................................................... 275 1. Connecticut ................................................................................. 275 2. New York ..................................................................................... 278 3. Utah ............................................................................................. 280 4. Hawaii......................................................................................... 281 5. New Hampshire........................................................................... 282 6. Kentucky ......................................................................................286 B. "Judicially Construed" Category II Approach.................................. 289 1. Georgia....................................................................................... 289 2. Idaho ...........................................................................................291 3. M assachusetts ............................................................................. 294 4. New Jersey .................................................................................. 295 5. Oklahoma .................................................................................... 301 6. Rhode Island................................................................................ 303 7. Vermont ....................................................................................... 305 8. Wyom ing ...................................................................................... 310 V. STATES WITH CASE LAW FOLLOWING THE CATEGORY III APPROACH: N ATURAL AND PROBABLE CONSEQUENCES .............................................. 312 A. "Codified" Category IlI Approach .................................................... 312 1. Arizona ........................................................................................ 312 2. Iowa ............................................................................................. 315 3. Kansas ......................................................................................... 317 4. M aine .......................................................................................... 320 5. M innesota.................................................................................... 322 6. W isconsin .................................................................................... 323 B. "Judicially Construed" Category III Approach ................................ 325 1. Alabama ...................................................................................... 325 2. Arkansas ......................................................................................327 3. California.................................................................................... 329 4. Delaware..................................................................................... 332 5. Illinois ......................................................................................... 334 6. Indiana ........................................................................................ 336 7. Louisiana..................................................................................... 337 8. M aryland..................................................................................... 339 9. M ichigan ..................................................................................... 341 10. Nebraska ..................................................................................... 342 11. North Carolina............................................................................ 344 12. South Carolina............................................................................ 348 13. Tennessee .................................................................................... 349 14. Virginia ....................................................................................... 352 https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/sclr/vol60/iss2/1 2 Decker: The Mental State Requirement for Accomplice Liability in American 2008] MENTAL STATE REQUIREMENT 239 VI. STATES WITH AMBIGUOUS, NOVEL, OR UNIQUE APPROACHES TO ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY ............................................................................ 356 A . Unresolved Issues .............................................................................. 356 1. Insufficient Case Law .................................................................. 356 a. A laska ................................................................................... 357 b. M ontana ............................................................................... 358 c. N orth D akota........................................................................ 360 d. South D akota ........................................................................ 36 1 2. D ivergent Case Law .................................................................... 364 a. M issouri................................................................................ 364 b . Oh io ...................................................................................... 36 5 c. W est Virginia........................................................................ 367 B. N onuniform R ules .............................................................................
Recommended publications
  • Charging Language

    Charging Language

    1. TABLE OF CONTENTS Abduction ................................................................................................73 By Relative.........................................................................................415-420 See Kidnapping Abuse, Animal ...............................................................................................358-362,365-368 Abuse, Child ................................................................................................74-77 Abuse, Vulnerable Adult ...............................................................................78,79 Accessory After The Fact ..............................................................................38 Adultery ................................................................................................357 Aircraft Explosive............................................................................................455 Alcohol AWOL Machine.................................................................................19,20 Retail/Retail Dealer ............................................................................14-18 Tax ................................................................................................20-21 Intoxicated – Endanger ......................................................................19 Disturbance .......................................................................................19 Drinking – Prohibited Places .............................................................17-20 Minors – Citation Only
  • YALE ARCHITECTURE FALL 2011 Constructs Yale Architecture

    YALE ARCHITECTURE FALL 2011 Constructs Yale Architecture

    1 CONSTRUCTS YALE ARCHITECTURE FALL 2011 Constructs Yale Architecture Fall 2011 Contents “Permanent Change” symposium review by Brennan Buck 2 David Chipperfield in Conversation Anne Tyng: Inhabiting Geometry 4 Grafton Architecture: Shelley McNamara exhibition review by Alicia Imperiale and Yvonne Farrell in Conversation New Users Group at Yale by David 6 Agents of Change: Geoff Shearcroft and Sadighian and Daniel Bozhkov Daisy Froud in Conversation Machu Picchu Artifacts 7 Kevin Roche: Architecture as 18 Book Reviews: Environment exhibition review by No More Play review by Andrew Lyon Nicholas Adams Architecture in Uniform review by 8 “Thinking Big” symposium review by Jennifer Leung Jacob Reidel Neo-avant-garde and Postmodern 10 “Middle Ground/Middle East: Religious review by Enrique Ramirez Sites in Urban Contexts” symposium Pride in Modesty review by Britt Eversole review by Erene Rafik Morcos 20 Spring 2011 Lectures 11 Commentaries by Karla Britton and 22 Spring 2011 Advanced Studios Michael J. Crosbie 23 Yale School of Architecture Books 12 Yale’s MED Symposium and Fab Lab 24 Faculty News 13 Fall 2011 Exhibitions: Yale Urban Ecology and Design Lab Ceci n’est pas une reverie: In Praise of the Obsolete by Olympia Kazi The Architecture of Stanley Tigerman 26 Alumni News Gwathmey Siegel: Inspiration and New York Dozen review by John Hill Transformation See Yourself Sensing by Madeline 16 In The Field: Schwartzman Jugaad Urbanism exhibition review by Tributes to Douglas Garofalo by Stanley Cynthia Barton Tigerman and Ed Mitchell 2 CONSTRUCTS YALE ARCHITECTURE FALL 2011 David Chipperfield David Chipperfield Architects, Neues Museum, façade, Berlin, Germany 1997–2009.
  • Casenotes: Criminal Law—Homicide—Felony-Murder—Felon Is

    Casenotes: Criminal Law—Homicide—Felony-Murder—Felon Is

    University of Baltimore Law Review Volume 9 Article 9 Issue 3 Spring 1980 1980 Casenotes: Criminal Law — Homicide — Felony- Murder — Felon Is Culpable for Murder in the First Degree under Maryland's Felony-Murder Statute When Police Officer Kills Kidnapped Hostage Used by Felon as Human Shield. Jackson v. State, 286 Md. 430, 408 A.2d 711 (1979) John A. Roberts University of Baltimore School of Law Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/ublr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Roberts, John A. (1980) "Casenotes: Criminal Law — Homicide — Felony-Murder — Felon Is Culpable for Murder in the First Degree under Maryland's Felony-Murder Statute When Police Officer Kills Kidnapped Hostage Used by Felon as Human Shield. Jackson v. State, 286 Md. 430, 408 A.2d 711 (1979)," University of Baltimore Law Review: Vol. 9: Iss. 3, Article 9. Available at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/ublr/vol9/iss3/9 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Baltimore Law Review by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CRIMINAL LAW - HOMICIDE - FELONY-MURDER - FELON IS CULPABLE FOR MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE UNDER MARYLAND'S FELONY-MURDER STATUTE WHEN POLICE OFFICER KILLS KIDNAPPED HOSTAGE USED BY FELON AS HUMAN SHIELD. JACKSON v. STATE, 286 Md. 430, 408 A.2d 711 (1979). At common law, when one commits homicide while perpetrating a felony, the felony-murder rule raises that homicide to murder.' In Maryland, when a person commits murder in the perpetration of one or more statutorily-enumerated felonies, that murder is in the first degree under the state's felony-murder statute.2 Maryland courts have readily applied this statute when the felon has struck the fatal blow.' Recently, in Jackson v.
  • People V Gillis, Unpublished Opinion Per Curiam of the Court of Appeals, Issued

    People V Gillis, Unpublished Opinion Per Curiam of the Court of Appeals, Issued

    Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan Chief Justice: Justices: Clifford W. Taylor Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Opinion Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman FILED APRIL 5, 2006 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v No. 127194 JOHN ALBERT GILLIS, Defendant-Appellee. _______________________________ BEFORE THE ENTIRE BENCH MARKMAN, J. We granted leave to appeal to consider whether our state’s first-degree murder statute permits a felony-murder conviction “in the perpetration of” a first- or second-degree home invasion in which the homicide occurs several miles away from the dwelling and several minutes after defendant departed from the dwelling. Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of two counts of first- degree felony murder, MCL 750.316(1)(b), with home invasion in the first degree, MCL 750.110a, as the predicate felony. Defendant appealed the convictions, asserting that he was no longer “in the perpetration” of home invasion at the time of the automobile collision that killed the victims. The Court of Appeals concluded that the accident was not “part of the continuous transaction of or immediately connected to the home invasion[,]” and, therefore, vacated the convictions and remanded for a new trial on the charges of second-degree murder. People v Gillis, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued August 17, 2004 (Docket No. 245012), slip op at 3. We conclude that “perpetration” encompasses acts by a defendant that occur outside the definitional elements of the predicate felony and includes acts that occur during the unbroken chain of events surrounding that felony.
  • Investigation of Armed Home Invasion Robberies Leads to Arrest of 5 Suspects

    Investigation of Armed Home Invasion Robberies Leads to Arrest of 5 Suspects

    Palos Verdes Estates Police Department Press Release Mark Velez Chief of Police Investigation of armed home invasion robberies leads to arrest of 5 suspects On March 2, 2018, Palos Verdes Estates Police Department officers responded to a report of an armed home invasion robbery in the 700 block of Via La Cuesta. Officers and detectives arrived and documented this violent crime, examined forensic evidence and started an investigation. On July 8, 2018, PVEPD officers responded to another report of an armed home invasion robbery, which oc- curred in the 1300 block of Via Coronel. PVEPD officers and detectives again responded. Our detec- tives analyzed evidence from both scenes and believed both crimes were committed by the same suspects. Through an intense analysis of evidence and data, our detectives were able to identify 5 suspects who they believed to be associated with a South Los Angeles gang. With the assistance of the Tor- rance Police Department, hundreds of hours of surveillance was conducted and additional infor- mation was developed. Our detectives contacted other agencies who had similar home invasion rob- beries. PVEPD detectives developed enough evidence to believe this robbery crew was responsible for an additional 6 home invasion robberies committed in various cities throughout Los Angeles county. These cities included Rancho Palos Verdes, La Habra Heights, La Canada, Playa Del Rey and Palmdale. The estimated loss of these robberies was 1 million dollars. After this intense, fo- cused investigation and collaboration with allied agencies and the LA County District Attorney’s Of- fice, PVEPD detectives obtained arrest and search warrants.
  • A Clarification of the Law of Attempted Murder in Illinois - People V

    A Clarification of the Law of Attempted Murder in Illinois - People V

    DePaul Law Review Volume 28 Issue 1 Fall 1978 Article 9 Specific Intent Made More Specific: A Clarification of the Law of Attempted Murder in Illinois - People v. Harris Nancy Lea Barrett Follow this and additional works at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/law-review Recommended Citation Nancy L. Barrett, Specific Intent Made More Specific: A Clarification of the Law ofttempted A Murder in Illinois - People v. Harris , 28 DePaul L. Rev. 157 (1978) Available at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/law-review/vol28/iss1/9 This Notes is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Law at Via Sapientiae. It has been accepted for inclusion in DePaul Law Review by an authorized editor of Via Sapientiae. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SPECIFIC INTENT MADE MORE SPECIFIC: A CLARIFICATION OF THE LAW OF ATTEMPTED MURDER IN ILLINOIS -PEOPLE V. HARRIS The essence of the crime of attempted murder is a specific intent to take life. 1 This concept has undergone a subtle but significant change in Illinois law. In a recent decision, the Illinois Supreme Court has sought to define the precise mental element necessary to sustain a conviction of attempted murder. In People v. Harris,2 the court held that "to convict for attempted murder nothing less than a criminal intent to kill must be shown. "3 The significance of this seemingly straightforward holding can be better ap- preciated in light of prior Illinois decisions, many of which have sanctioned attempted murder charges based on something less than intent to cause 4 death.
  • Scmf-11-0000315 in the Supreme Court of the State

    Scmf-11-0000315 in the Supreme Court of the State

    SCMF-11-0000315 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I In the Matter of the Publication and Distribution of the Hawai#i Pattern Jury Instructions - Criminal ORDER APPROVING PUBLICATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF HAWAI#I PATTERN JURY INSTRUCTIONS - CRIMINAL (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.) Upon consideration of the request of the Standing Committee on Pattern Criminal Jury Instructions to publish and distribute the revision of Criminal Instructions 6.01, 7.5, 10.00A(3), 10.05A, 10.05C, 10.07, 10.07A, 10.09, and 10.09A of the Hawai#i Pattern Jury Instructions - Criminal, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the request is granted as to the revisions proposed to Criminal Instructions 6.01, 7.5, and 10.00A(3), as amended in this order. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that this approval for publication and distribution is not and shall not be considered by this court or any other court to be an approval or judgment as to the validity or correctness of the substance of any instruction. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, May 5, 2017. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Michael D. Wilson 2 6.01 ACCOMPLICE A defendant charged with committing an offense may be guilty because he/she is an accomplice of another person in the commission of the offense. The prosecution must prove accomplice liability beyond a reasonable doubt. A person is an accomplice of another in the commission of an offense if: 1. With the intent to promote or facilitate the commission of the offense, he/she a.
  • Parties to Crime and Vicarious Liability

    Parties to Crime and Vicarious Liability

    CHAPTER 6: PARTIES TO CRIME AND VICARIOUS LIABILITY The text discusses parties to crime in terms of accessories and accomplices. Accessories are defined as accessory before the fact – those who help prepare for the crime – and accessories after the fact – those who assist offenders after the crime. Accomplices are defined as those who participate in the crime. Under the common law, accessories were typically not punished as much as accomplices or principle offenders; on the other hand, accomplices were usually punished the same as principal offenders. Accomplices and Accessories Before the Fact Under Ohio’s statutes, accomplices and accessories before the fact are now treated similarly, while accessories after the fact are treated separately under the obstruction of justice statute discussed later. Under Ohio’s complicity staute: (A) No person acting with the kind of culpability required for an offense…shall do any of the following: Solicit or procure another to commit the offense; Aid or abet another in committing the offense; Conspire with another to commit the offense… ; Cause an innocent or irresponsible person to commit the offense. (Ohio Revised Code, § 2923.03, 1986, available at http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2923.03). Note that parts of the complicity statute – (A)(1) and (A)(3) – mention both solicitation and conspiracy. These two crimes are discussed in Chapter 7. The punishment for complicity is the same as for the principal offender; that is, if Offender A robs a liquor store and Offender B drives the getaway car, both offenders are subject to the same punishment, even though Offender A would be charged with robbery and Offender B would be charged with complicity (Ohio Revised Code, § 2923.03 (F), 1986, available at http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2923.03).
  • Virginia Model Jury Instructions – Criminal

    Virginia Model Jury Instructions – Criminal

    Virginia Model Jury Instructions – Criminal Release 20, September 2019 NOTICE TO USERS: THE FOLLOWING SET OF UNANNOTATED MODEL JURY INSTRUCTIONS ARE BEING MADE AVAILABLE WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE PUBLISHER, MATTHEW BENDER & COMPANY, INC. PLEASE NOTE THAT THE FULL ANNOTATED VERSION OF THESE MODEL JURY INSTRUCTIONS IS AVAILABLE FOR PURCHASE FROM MATTHEW BENDER® BY WAY OF THE FOLLOWING LINK: https://store.lexisnexis.com/categories/area-of-practice/criminal-law-procedure- 161/virginia-model-jury-instructions-criminal-skuusSku6572 Matthew Bender is a registered trademark of Matthew Bender & Company, Inc. Instruction No. 2.050 Preliminary Instructions to Jury Members of the jury, the order of the trial of this case will be in four stages: 1. Opening statements 2. Presentation of the evidence 3. Instructions of law 4. Final argument After the conclusion of final argument, I will instruct you concerning your deliberations. You will then go to your room, select a foreperson, deliberate, and arrive at your verdict. Opening Statements First, the Commonwealth's attorney may make an opening statement outlining his or her case. Then the defendant's attorney also may make an opening statement. Neither side is required to do so. Presentation of the Evidence [Second, following the opening statements, the Commonwealth will introduce evidence, after which the defendant then has the right to introduce evidence (but is not required to do so). Rebuttal evidence may then be introduced if appropriate.] [Second, following the opening statements, the evidence will be presented.] Instructions of Law Third, at the conclusion of all evidence, I will instruct you on the law which is to be applied to this case.
  • Criminal Law Mnemonics

    Criminal Law Mnemonics

    CRIMINAL LAW MNEMONICS 1) CRIM K is a criminal’s state of mind: C – CRIMINALLY negligently R – RECKLESSLY (a.k.a. wantonly) I – INTENTIONALLY M – MALICIOUSLY K – KNOWINGLY 2) Think PIES for the more severe ARSONS P – There was a PECUNIARY motive for setting fire, I – An INCENDIARY device was used (Molotov cocktail), E – EXPLOSIVES were used, or S – Someone is SERIOUSLY injured 3) FIGS MAN kills: F – FELONY murder I – INTENTIONAL murder G – Defendant’s conduct created a GRAVE risk of death. Defendant was aware of the risk and consciously disregarded it displaying a depraved indifference to the victim’s life S – Intent to cause SERIOUS bodily harm that results in death MAN – MANSLAUGHTER (voluntary or involuntary) 4) BRAKERS MPC § 210.2(1)(b) can commit felony murder, but not in a LAB: B – BURGLARY R – ROBBERY A – ARSON K – KIDNAPPING E – ESCAPE from police custody after arrest R – RAPE S – Criminal SEXUAL act L – LARCENY A – ASSAULT B – BATTERY 5) A CUB can’t be sentenced to death for felony murder: C – D didn’t COMMIT, command, or request the homicide U – D was UNARMED with a deadly instrument or substance readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury AND B – D had no reason to BELIEVE another co-conspirator was armed or intended to engage in conduct likely to result in death © 2017 Pieper Bar Review 1 6) HIS negates a murderous intent: H – Committed in the HEAT of passion (HOP) or under extreme emotional disturbance I – INSANITY or infancy of killer S – SELF-DEFENSE or defense of others/justification (*if established it’s a complete defense) 7) An unintended homicide is murder if it was a BIG death B – It occurred during a BREAKERS felony (felony murder); I – The defendant’s INTENT was to cause serious injury resulting in death; or G – The defendant created a GRAVE risk of death and the defendant consciously disregarded the risk (Depraved mind murder).
  • CRIMINAL ATTEMPTS at COMMON LAW Edwin R

    CRIMINAL ATTEMPTS at COMMON LAW Edwin R

    [Vol. 102 CRIMINAL ATTEMPTS AT COMMON LAW Edwin R. Keedy t GENERAL PRINCIPLES Much has been written on the law of attempts to commit crimes 1 and much more will be written for this is one of the most interesting and difficult problems of the criminal law.2 In many discussions of criminal attempts decisions dealing with common law attempts, stat- utory attempts and aggravated assaults, such as assaults with intent to murder or to rob, are grouped indiscriminately. Since the defini- tions of statutory attempts frequently differ from the common law concepts,8 and since the meanings of assault differ widely,4 it is be- "Professor of Law Emeritus, University of Pennsylvania. 1. See Beale, Criminal Attempts, 16 HARv. L. REv. 491 (1903); Hoyles, The Essentials of Crime, 46 CAN. L.J. 393, 404 (1910) ; Cook, Act, Intention and Motive in the Criminal Law, 26 YALE L.J. 645 (1917) ; Sayre, Criminal Attempts, 41 HARv. L. REv. 821 (1928) ; Tulin, The Role of Penalties in the Criminal Law, 37 YALE L.J. 1048 (1928) ; Arnold, Criminal Attempts-The Rise and Fall of an Abstraction, 40 YALE L.J. 53 (1930); Curran, Criminal and Non-Criminal Attempts, 19 GEo. L.J. 185, 316 (1931); Strahorn, The Effect of Impossibility on Criminal Attempts, 78 U. OF PA. L. Rtv. 962 (1930); Derby, Criminal Attempt-A Discussion of Some New York Cases, 9 N.Y.U.L.Q. REv. 464 (1932); Turner, Attempts to Commit Crimes, 5 CA=. L.J. 230 (1934) ; Skilton, The Mental Element in a Criminal Attempt, 3 U.
  • No. Caap-18-0000141

    No. Caap-18-0000141

    NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER NO. CAAP-18-0000141 IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I EDWARD G. STANLEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE OF HAWAI#I, Respondent-Appellee APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT (S.P.P. NO. 17-1-0007 (CR. NO. 1PC880000418)) SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Leonard, Presiding Judge, Reifurth and Chan, JJ.) Petitioner-Appellant Edward G. Stanley (Stanley) appeals from the "Order Dismissing Edward G. Stanley's Hawaii Rules of Penal Procedure [(HRPP)] Rule 40 Petition, filed on March 30, 2017, Without Hearing," filed on February 23, 2018, in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (Circuit Court).1 On September 22, 1988, Stanley was convicted of: two counts of Reckless Endangering in the First Degree (Counts I and II), as lesser included offenses of Attempted Murder in the First Degree; one count of Attempted Murder in the First Degree, in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) §§ 705-500 (1985), 707-701(1)(b) (Supp. 1988), and 706-656 (Supp. 1988) (Count III); one count of Attempted Manslaughter (Count V), as a lesser included offense of Attempted Murder in the Second Degree; and 1 The Honorable Paul B.K. Wong presided. NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER one count of Place to Keep Firearm, in violation of HRS § 134-6 (Supp. 1988) (Count VI).2 Stanley was sentenced to five years imprisonment for Counts I and II, life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for Count III, ten years imprisonment with a mandatory minimum of five years for Count V, and five years imprisonment for Count VI, all sentences to be served concurrently.