刑法
刑法概述Overview of Criminal Law
适用法律Applicable Law
The sources of criminal law are very complex; for example, the Constitution directly defines the crime of treason. The federal government and each state have their own criminal laws, and smaller administrative units can also enact criminal laws.
刑法的法源非常复杂，比如宪法中都直接规定了叛国罪。联邦、每个州都有自己的刑法，更小的行政单位也可以制定刑法。
The criminal law we study includes:
我们学习的刑法包括：
Unlike Contracts, we do not study when to apply the common law, federal criminal law, or state criminal law. There are about 12 criminal law questions on the MBE, 9 of which test the common law or majority view. Two questions will provide specific statutes to test the application of particular crimes (usually homicide or strict liability crimes) in that jurisdiction. Only one question, or sometimes none, will test the MPC.
与合同法不一样的是，我们并不学习什么时候适用普通法、什么时候适用联邦刑法、什么时候适用州刑法。MBE大概12个刑法题，其中9个考普通法或者通说观点。有2个会给你具体的法条，考特定罪名（通常是杀人或严格责任犯罪）在该州的运用。只有1个考MPC，或者干脆不考。
In practice, most criminal cases apply state law, but I will not cover it at all; even the California state-specific subjects do not include a separate 'California Criminal Law' course. This is why I say what I teach is likely different from your local criminal law.
实务上大多数刑事案件适用州法，但我完全不讲，甚至连加州的小法都没有“加州刑法”这一门。这就是为什么我说我教的很可能和你当地的刑法不同。
Of course, the criminal law of each state is largely similar to the majority view, and you will even find that Chinese and U.S. criminal laws are quite similar. So if you want to become a criminal defense attorney (which I highly doubt), don't worry that my course will be completely useless to you.
当然，每个州的刑法都和通说观点大同小异，甚至你会发现中美的刑法其实也大同小异。所以如果你想成为刑辩律师（我很怀疑这一点），不用担心我的课对你毫无用处。
实体法和程序法Substantive Law and Procedural Law
Criminal law and criminal procedure are almost two completely different sets of theories. You could even study criminal procedure before criminal law without feeling much disconnect (though my recommended order is Constitutional Law → Criminal Law → Criminal Procedure).
刑法和刑诉几乎是两套完全不同的理论。你甚至可以先学刑诉再学刑法也不会感到太多违和（但我推荐的顺序是宪法 → 刑法 → 刑诉）。
When studying substantive law, we must be careful not to get bogged down in procedural matters, for example:
学习实体法我们要注意不要纠结程序上的事情，比如：
Zhang San intends to take a watch for himself in a supermarket; when he moves the watch, the crime of larceny is established.
张三在超市打算将一块手表据为己有，当他移动手表时，盗窃罪成立。
When doing criminal law questions, we assume all facts have been proven. Here, 'intent to steal' can be used directly as a fact. As for how to prove it, that is left for Evidence and Procedural Law to consider; substantive law does not care.
在做刑法题时，我们预设所有的事实都已经被证明了，在这里，“打算偷窃”可以直接当事实用，至于如何去证明，留给证据法和诉讼法去考虑，实体法并不关心。
Criminal law is a very simple course, especially if you have studied Chinese criminal law well; learning U.S. criminal law will also be easy and enjoyable.
刑法是很简单的一门课，尤其是如果你中国刑法学得好的话，学美国刑法也会轻松愉快。
数额、情节和量刑Amount, Circumstances, and Sentencing
Criminal law questions do not consider the amount involved in the crime. For example, in China, larceny constitutes a crime only when the 'amount is relatively large,' but there is no such concept in common law.
刑法题不考虑犯罪数额。比如中国的盗窃“数额较大”时才构成犯罪，普通法没有这种说法。
In the July 2023 California essay question, the defendant saw someone else's firewood and lit it to keep warm. This satisfied the elements of larceny, without needing to consider the value of the firewood. Of course, one could discuss whether he met the defense of necessity.
在加州2023年7月的论文题中，被告人看到别人的木材并点燃用来取暖，这就构成了盗窃罪的要件，不必考虑木材的数额。当然，可以讨论他是否满足紧急避险的抗辩。
In practice, prosecutors may choose not to press charges for petty theft; again, criminal law does not concern itself with procedural matters.
实务上检察官对于数额较小的盗窃可能会选择不起诉，同样，刑法不关心程序上的事情。
We also will not study circumstances such as 'serious circumstances' or 'especially serious circumstances' for a certain crime. For example, in battery, we do not consider whether the victim suffered 'minor injuries,' 'slight injuries,' or 'severe injuries': because we do not study specific sentencing at all. Of course, some sentencing principles are protected by the Constitution—we again leave these issues for procedural law to address.
我们也不会学习某个罪“情节严重”、“情节特别严重”等情形。比如伤害罪，我们也不考虑被害人是“轻微伤”、“轻伤”还是“重伤”：因为我们压根就不学习具体量刑。当然，量刑有一些原则是受到宪法保障的——我们再次留给诉讼法去关心这些问题。
管辖Jurisdiction
A state acquires jurisdiction if the conduct or the result occurs within that state.
行为和结果在此州发生，该州获得管辖权。
Zhang San shoots and kills Li Si, who is standing in New Jersey, from New York. Both states have jurisdiction over Zhang San.
张三在纽约州开枪杀死站在新泽西州的李四，两个州对张三都有管辖权。
重罪和轻罪Felonies and Misdemeanors
Let's first quickly memorize several common law felonies: murder, rape, manslaughter, robbery, sodomy, larceny, arson, mayhem, and burglary. You can use the mnemonic MR. & MRS. LAMB to remember them.
我们先快速记住几种普通法重罪（felony）：杀人（murder）, 强奸（rape）, 致人死亡（manslaughter）, 抢劫（robbery）, 同性间的性行为（sodomy），盗窃（larceny）, 放火（arson）, 致人残疾（mayhem）和入室犯法（burglary）。可以用MR. & MRS. LAMB来记忆他们。
Consensual sodomy is no longer a crime; this is a modification of the common law by the U.S. Constitution and statutes.
同性间自愿的性行为已经不再是犯罪，这是美国宪法和法条对普通法的修改。
The distinction between a felony and a misdemeanor is somewhat trivial and will be mentioned repeatedly later. For now, you just need to remember the English terms for these crimes. States can also define felonies and misdemeanors by statute.
重罪（felony）和轻罪（misdemeanor）的区别比较琐碎，我们会在后面反复提到。这里只需要先记住这些罪名的英文单词。各州也可以通过法条定义重罪和轻罪。
Battery is a common law misdemeanor. Many states define aggravated battery as a felony, and define mayhem as a form of aggravated battery. This is perfectly fine (statutes supersede common law). If tested, the question will provide the specific statute in advance.
伤害（battery）是普通法的轻罪，很多州把伤害罪的加重情节（aggravated battery）定义为重罪，又把致残罪（mayhem）定义为伤害罪的加重情节。这都是可以的（法条优先于普通法），如果考到这些，题目会提前给出具体法条。
California's Proposition 47 raised the threshold for felony theft from $400 to $950, but theft under $950 remains a misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail. Although the rumor in the Chinese community that theft under $950 goes unpunished is false, in practice, it might be true that there are too many thefts, even those over $950, to prosecute them all. Since the common law defines larceny as a felony, on the MBE, unless a statute is provided, larceny is always treated as a felony, even if only $1 is stolen.
加州47号提案(Prop 47) 将盗窃重罪（felony）的标准从400美元提高到950美元，但950美元以下的盗窃依然是轻罪（misdemeanor），最长可以被判1年监禁。华人圈说950美元以下不处罚虽然是谣言，但实务上的确可能因为盗窃哪怕是950美元以上的人都太多而处罚不过来。既然普通法把盗窃定义为重罪，在MBE考试中，没有给出法条的情况下盗窃一律按照重罪处理，哪怕只盗窃1美元。
犯罪构成Elements of a Crime
主观心态Mental State (Mens Rea)
普通法的主观心态Common Law Mental States
Similar to Chinese criminal law, the common law also emphasizes the "concurrence of act and intent" (actus reus and mens rea). Therefore, if you have a good grasp of this concept in Chinese criminal law, learning this part will be very easy.
和中国刑法类似，普通法也讲究“主客观相一致”，所以如果你中国刑法的“主客观相一致”学的很好，这部分学习会很轻松。
We use mens rea to denote the subjective criminal state of mind. First, we need to quickly distinguish between general intent crimes and specific intent crimes. General intent crimes only require that the defendant intended to perform the act prohibited by law (actus reus), without needing any additional criminal purpose or foreseeing a specific result. Specific intent crimes, on the other hand, require that the defendant not only intended to commit the act but also intended to achieve a specific consequence (intent to achieve a further result).
我们用mens rea表示主观的犯罪心态。首先我们需要迅速识别出一般意图犯罪（general intent crimes）和特定意图犯罪（specific intent crimes）。一般意图犯罪只需要被告人有意去做那个被法律禁止的动作（actus reus），不需要在此之外还有其他的犯罪目的，也不需要预知特定的后果。而特定意图犯罪要求被告人不仅要意图实施那个动作，还希望造成特定后果（intent to achieve a further result）。
Specific intent crimes include the following five categories:
特定意图的罪名包括下面5类：
You can use the acronym AMBIT to remember all specific intent crimes, representing Assault, Murder (premeditated), Burglary, Inchoate crimes, and Theft crimes. Pay special attention that common law murder is not a specific intent crime; only premeditated murder defined by state statute is.
用一个单词AMBIT可以记住所有特定意图罪名，分别代表袭击、预谋杀人、入室犯法、雏形罪和广义盗窃。尤其注意普通法杀人并不是特定意图罪名，州法条规定的预谋杀人才是。
We can see that solicitation, attempt, and conspiracy are actually independent crimes. This is a blessing for examinees because independent crimes are simpler to analyze. We learned about assault in the torts section, so it is not unfamiliar. Larceny, robbery, false pretenses, embezzlement, and forgery all have corresponding crimes in Chinese criminal law and are largely similar, but pay attention to the subtle differences.
我们可以看到，教唆、未遂和共谋居然都独立成罪了，其实这是考生的福音，因为独立成罪分析起来更简单。袭击我们在侵权篇中学过，并不陌生。盗窃、抢劫、诈骗、侵占、伪造，都可以在中国刑法中找到对应的罪名，和中国的刑法大同小异，但要注意细微的区别。
We also need to learn two crimes with a mental state of malice. We have already learned in the torts section that malice = intent + recklessness, and recklessness is defined as the reckless disregard of an obvious risk.
我们还需要学习两种恶意心态（malice）的罪名。我们已经在侵权篇学过，恶意=故意+鲁莽，而鲁莽的定义是忽视显然的风险（reckless disregard of an obvious risk）。
We are not unfamiliar with the word malice. When learning about defamation, defamation against a public official requires proving actual malice to establish the tort. This means either 1. knowing it is false but still defaming; or 2. although not knowing it is false, one should have known it was false and recklessly failed to verify it (reckless disregard of an obvious risk). We can see that the meaning of this word has not changed, but in common law murder, this word is given more meanings.
我们对恶意（malice）这个单词并不陌生，在学习诽谤的时候，对公职人员的诽谤就必须要证明真实恶意才能成立侵权。也是要么1. 明知是假的依然诽谤；要么 2. 虽然并不明知是假的，但应当知道是假的，鲁莽地不去核实（reckless disregard of an obvious risk）。可以看到出这个单词的意思并没有改变，但在普通法杀人中，这个单词被赋予了更多的含义。
Except for these five categories of specific intent crimes and the two malice crimes, all other crimes not specifically mentioned are general intent crimes.
除了这五类特定意图犯罪和两种恶意心态犯罪，其他没有特别说明的罪名都是一般意图犯罪（general intent crimes）。
Zhang San unlawfully breaks into someone else's house to take shelter from the rain. While taking shelter, he finds money and steals it. Zhang San commits larceny, but he does not commit burglary because he did not have the specific intent to commit a felony at the time he broke into the house.
张三非法侵入别人家中避雨，避雨过程中发现钱财于是盗走。张三构成盗窃罪（larceny），但并不构成入室犯法罪（burglary），因为他侵入别人家中时没有犯下重罪的特定意图。
A brother tells Zhang San that his laptop was taken by Li Si and wants Zhang San to get it back. Zhang San uses force to take the laptop back. Regardless of whether the laptop actually belongs to the brother, Zhang San does not commit robbery because he lacks the specific intent to permanently deprive another of their property.
哥哥告诉张三自己的笔记本被李四拿走了，想让张三要回来，张三用武力把笔记本夺回来。无论笔记本是不是哥哥的，张三均不构成抢劫罪（robbery），他没有永久剥夺他人财务的特定意图。
To celebrate Li Si passing the bar exam, Zhang San tosses Li Si into the air intending to catch him, but Li Si falls and is injured. Similar to the tort standard, the act of tossing someone into the air is considered substantially certain to cause injury, so it constitutes battery. If Li Si had not been injured, Zhang San would not have committed attempted battery, because the crime of attempt requires Zhang San to have the specific intent to cause injury.
为了庆祝李四通过司考，张三把李四抛高想要接住，结果李四被摔伤。和侵权的标准一样，抛高的行为被认为有显著的可能（substantially certain）让人受伤，所以构成伤害罪。假如李四没有摔伤，张三不构成伤害未遂（attemped battery），因为未遂罪要求张三有造成伤害的特定意图。
MPC的主观心态MPC Mental States
The MPC mental states are divided into:
MPC的主观心态分为
MPC questions will usually provide you with specific statutes to analyze; pay attention to the logic of the crimes.
MPC的题通常会给你具体的法条让你分析，注意罪名的逻辑。
A state adopts the MPC and provides that the crime of drug possession requires knowingly possessing drugs. Zhang San receives a highly suspicious package; he does not know what is inside but still chooses to take it away. Zhang San does not commit the crime of drug possession.
某州采用MPC，并规定持有毒品罪要求明知（knowingly）持有的是毒品。张三收到一个非常可疑的包裹，他并不知道里面是什么，但依然选择带走，张三不构成持有毒品罪。
客观行为Actus Reus (Objective Act)
Similar to Chinese criminal law, both acts and omissions can constitute the objective element of a crime (actus reus) in criminal law.
和中国刑法一样，作为和不作为都有可能构成刑法上的客观行为（actus reus）。
作为Acts (Commissions)
The requirement is a voluntary act, which includes habitual movements and acts committed under duress. Duress may be an affirmative defense, but it does not negate the elements of the crime.
要求是自主意识的行为，包括习惯动作和被胁迫而作出的行为。胁迫可能是一个积极抗辩，但不影响犯罪要件的成立。
Falling after being pushed by someone else, reflexes (such as the knee-jerk reaction), epileptic seizures, and sleepwalking are not considered voluntary acts.
被其他人推搡后摔倒、条件反射（比如膝跳反应）、癫痫发作、梦游等不算是自主意识的行为。
不作为Omissions
If the defendant has a legal duty to act, an omission may constitute a crime. Such duties include:
如果被告人有作为的法定义务，那么不作为可能造成犯罪，包括：
Example: Zhang San sees someone drowning and swims over, only to discover it is his enemy, Li Si. If Zhang San's actions cause others who intended to help to believe their assistance is no longer needed, Zhang San has assumed a duty to act.
张三看到有人溺水于是游过去，发现是自己的仇人李四，如果张三的行动导致其他本来打算救助的人认为不必多此一举，张三就有了作为的义务。
主客观相一致Concurrence
Similar to Chinese criminal law, the mental state (mens rea) and the physical act (actus reus) must occur at the same time (concurrence) to constitute a crime.
和中国刑法一样，主观心态和客观行为必须一致（concurrence）才构成犯罪。
Example: Believing one is possessing an (unregistered) firearm, but actually possessing drugs, constitutes neither the crime of illegal possession of a firearm nor the crime of illegal possession of drugs.
以为持有的是（未注册的）枪支，实际持有的是毒品，既不构成非法持有枪支罪，也不构成非法持有毒品罪。
Please note that general intent crimes still require concurrence. If Zhang San merely accidentally trips Li Si, it is just an accident and does not constitute criminal battery. To determine whether the defendant's act constitutes intent, one can refer to the intent required for battery in tort law: either desiring to cause a harmful or offensive contact, or desiring to create an apprehension of such contact in the victim, or acting with substantial certainty that a harmful or offensive contact will result.
请注意一般意图犯罪依然是要求主客观相一致的，如果张三只是不小心绊倒了李四，那么就只是意外事件，不构成伤害罪。抛高行为是否构成故意，可以参考侵权篇伤害侵权的故意，即要么希望达到有害或冒犯的接触，或者希望让被害人有被接触的期待，或者该行为有显著的可能性（with substantial certainty）会带来有害或冒犯的接触。
严格责任犯罪Strict Liability Crimes
The only crimes that do not require concurrence are strict liability crimes. The common law did not have such offenses; exam questions will provide specific statutes. These offenses actually contradict traditional criminal law theory. There are no strict liability crimes in China; for example, having sexual relations with a minor girl requires the defendant to realize (or at least foresee the possibility) that she is under 14 to constitute a crime. A somewhat similar offense is "unexplained wealth of unknown origin," but even that is not entirely without defenses like strict liability crimes. The U.S. Supreme Court has not yet explicitly ruled on the constitutionality of strict liability crimes in general, but fortunately, strict liability offenses usually carry lighter penalties (such as fines). Statutory rape, however, is an exception.
唯一不要求主客观相一致的犯罪是严格责任犯罪（strict liability crimes）。普通法没有这类罪名，题目会给你具体法条。这类罪名其实违背刑法理论。在中国就没有严格责任犯罪，比如和幼女发生性关系也需要被告人认识到幼女（至少是可能）不满14岁才构成犯罪，比较接近的有巨额财产来源不明罪，但也不会像严格责任犯罪这样毫无抗辩。美国最高法院暂时还没有对严格责任犯罪是否合宪进行明确表态，好在严格责任罪名通常只会处较轻的刑罚（比如罚金）。但法定强奸罪是一个例外。
Example: A state statute provides that having sexual intercourse with a minor under 16 constitutes strict liability statutory rape. A girl presents a fake ID showing she is 17 and looks like she is 20, and Zhang San has sexual intercourse with her. Zhang San is guilty of statutory rape. Zhang San completely lacks a criminal mental state and could not have known the girl was under 16, but this does not prevent him from being guilty of the crime.
某州规定和16岁以下小孩发生性关系构成严格责任的法定强奸罪（statutory rape）。某女孩出示假身份证显示17岁，看起来像20岁，张三与其发生性关系。张三成立法定强奸罪。张三完全没有犯罪的主观心态，他不可能认识到女孩不满16岁，但不影响他成立犯罪。
Example: A statute makes it a crime to sell clenbuterol. Due to a supplier's negligence, a store clerk unknowingly sells it. Both the clerk and the owner can be guilty of the crime, though typically only a fine is imposed. The reason for the owner's criminal liability can be understood by drawing an analogy to vicarious liability in tort law.
某种规定出售瘦肉精是犯罪，因为供货商的疏忽，店员在毫不知情的情况下出售了瘦肉精。店员和老板都可以构成犯罪，但一般只处罚款。老板犯罪的原因可以借鉴侵权篇中的替代责任（vicarious liability）。
Let's summarize: "Specific intent" has the highest requirement for conviction, requiring the defendant to desire a specific result through the criminal act; "Malice" is slightly lower, where the defendant's reckless disregard of an unreasonable risk also constitutes a crime; "General intent" is even lower, requiring only that the defendant be aware of the act that constitutes the crime; finally, for strict liability crimes, the defendant does not need to have a culpable mental state.
我们总结一下：“特定意图”定罪的要求最高，要求被告人希望通过犯罪行为达到特定的结果；“恶意”稍微低一点，被告人放纵不合理的风险也会构成犯罪；一般意图更低一些，被告人只要意识到他构成犯罪的行为即可定罪；最后是严格责任犯罪，被告人不需要有主观心态。
因果关系Causation
The analysis of causation is almost identical to that in the torts section; let's review it.
因果关系的分析和侵权篇几乎一样，我们复习一下。
Example: Both actual cause and proximate cause must be present to establish complete causation.
实际原因和可预见原因都要具备才能构成一个完整的因果关系。
In addition, there are a few other testable points worth mentioning:
此外还有一些值得一提的考点：
The eggshell-skull rule is similar to the one in torts: if the victim has a preexisting vulnerability, the result is still attributable to the defendant.
蛋壳头骨（eggshell-skull）规则和侵权篇类似，如果被害人有特殊体质，依然要归因于被告人。
Example: Zhang San intentionally shoots and injures Li Si's arm. As a result, Li Si, who has hemophilia, bleeds to death. Even though an ordinary person without hemophilia would not have died from this, Zhang San is responsible for Li Si's death.
张三故意射伤李四的手臂，结果李四患有血友病流血过多身亡。即使不患有血友病的一般人不会因此身亡，张三要对李四的死亡负责。
The rule of hastening an inevitable result states that even if a result is inevitable, causing it to occur sooner establishes causation.
提前发生（hastening inevitable result）规则是说即使一个结果不可避免，让它提前发生也构成因果关系。
Example: Right before Li Si is about to be executed, Zhang San goes to the prison and kills him. Zhang San is responsible for Li Si's death.
李四即将被执行死刑之前，张三到监狱里杀了李四，张三对李四的死亡负责。
Intervening factors still involve the issue of foreseeability. This is very similar to tort law.
介入因素（intervening factors）考虑的依然是可预见性的问题。和侵权篇十分类似。
Example: Zhang San sets Li Si on fire, and Li Si jumps into a river and drowns. Li Si's act of jumping into the river is foreseeable, so Zhang San is responsible for Li Si's death.
张三在李四身上点火，李四跳进河里淹死，李四跳河的行为是可以遇见的，张三对李四的死亡负责。
Example: Zhang San shoots Li Si. A doctor could have saved Li Si but fails to do so due to medical malpractice. Ordinary medical malpractice is foreseeable, so Zhang San is responsible for Li Si's death.
张三射中李四，医生本来可以救活李四，但是因为医疗过失没能救活。一般的医疗过失是可以遇见的，张三对李四的死亡负责。
Example: Zhang San plans to drive Li Si to the suburbs to kill him, but on the new route, a truck driving on the wrong side of the road happens to strike and kill Li Si. Although there is actual causation, Zhang San could not have foreseen the truck driving on the wrong side, so he is at least not guilty of completed murder. Whether this constitutes attempted murder will be discussed later.
张三打算开车带李四去郊外杀掉李四，结果新的路线有大货车逆行刚好撞死了李四。虽然有事实上的因果关系，但张三无法预见会有大货车逆行，至少不成立杀人既遂。是否构成杀人未遂（attempted murder），我们会在后文学习。
犯罪形态和共同犯罪Inchoate Offenses and Accomplice Liability
雏形罪Inchoate Offenses
We refer to solicitation, attempt, and conspiracy as inchoate offenses.
我们把教唆（solicitation）、未遂（attempt）和共谋（conspiracy）叫做雏形罪（inchoate offenses）。
Under common law, these are independent offenses. Solicitation and attempt merge with the completed crime, but conspiracy does not merge.
在普通法中，这几个罪是独立成罪的。其中教唆和未遂会和主罪合并，但共谋不会合并。
Zhang San cannot be simultaneously guilty of attempted robbery and completed robbery, nor can he be simultaneously guilty of solicitation to commit robbery and completed robbery. However, Zhang San can be simultaneously guilty of conspiracy to commit robbery and completed robbery, or any combination of two or three of solicitation, attempt, and conspiracy.
张三不可能同时犯抢劫未遂和抢劫既遂，也不可能同时犯教唆抢劫和抢劫既遂，但张三有可能同时犯共谋抢劫和抢劫既遂，或者教唆、未遂和共谋三个中两个或三个任意组合。
教唆罪Solicitation
Solicitation is an independent offense established when one incites another to commit a crime. Whether the other person actually commits the crime or has any criminal intent does not affect the establishment of the offense once the solicitation is complete. This differs significantly from Chinese criminal law, but it is very simple to learn.
教唆他人犯罪时成立独立的教唆罪（solicitation）。无论他人是否真的犯罪、是否有犯罪意图，都不影响在教唆完成时犯罪成立。这和中国的刑法区别很大，但是学起来也很简单。
Zhang San solicits Li Si to commit a crime, but Li Si is actually an undercover police officer. Under common law, the offense of solicitation is established.
张三教唆李四犯罪，实际上李四是卧底警察。在普通法下，教唆罪成立。
共谋罪Conspiracy
Conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime in the future. Like solicitation, it is an independent offense. There are several key testing points to note:
共谋（conspiracy）是两个或以上的人计划在未来犯下某个罪名，和教唆一样是一个独立的罪名。有几个考点要注意：
Zhang San and Li Si agree to commit a crime, but Li Si is an undercover police officer. Under common law, Zhang San is not guilty of conspiracy because only one person has a guilty mind. However, under the MPC, even if only Zhang San has a guilty mind, he can be guilty of conspiracy.
张三和李四合意犯罪，但李四是卧底警察。在普通法下，张三不成立共谋罪，因为只有一个人有犯罪心理；但在MPC下，即使只有张三有犯罪心理，也可以成立共谋罪。
Zhang San conspires with Li Si to commit a crime through the communication of an undercover police officer. Zhang San and Li Si have never met and do not know each other's identity, but a conspiracy is still established.
张三通过卧底警察的沟通和李四密谋犯罪，张三和李四都没有见过对方，也不知道对方是谁，但依然成立共谋罪。
未遂罪Attempt
Attempting to commit a crime is also a separate offense, which we translate as '未遂罪' (attempt).
尝试犯罪（attempt）也是一个单独的罪名，我们翻译成未遂罪。
Under common law, attempt requires the defendant's conduct to be 'dangerously close' to successful completion.
普通法下，未遂罪需要离既遂“足够接近”。
Zhang San pulls the trigger, but the gun jams and he fails to kill Li Si. Zhang San is guilty of attempted murder under common law.
张三扣动扳机，结果因为抢卡壳未能杀掉李四，张三构成普通法下的杀人未遂（attempted murder）。
Under the MPC, a 'substantial step' is sufficient to constitute the offense.
在MPC下，“实质性的行为”（substantial step）就可以构成犯罪了。
Zhang San buys a gun to commit murder. Zhang San is likely not guilty of attempted murder under common law, but he is guilty of attempted murder under the MPC.
张三为了杀人购买了一个枪支，张三很有可能不构成普通法下的杀人未遂，但构成MPC下的杀人未遂。
雏形罪的共性Common Characteristics of Inchoate Offenses
Solicitation, conspiracy, and attempt share several common characteristics.
教唆罪、共谋罪和未遂罪都有一些共性。
Under common law, abandonment is not a defense to inchoate offenses. For example, once the solicitation or agreement is complete, the offense is established; subsequently persuading the other party not to commit the crime has no effect on the establishment of the offense. Under the MPC, a fully voluntary and complete abandonment can serve as a defense, but merely postponing the crime is insufficient.
在普通法下，放弃（abandonment）不是雏形罪的抗辩，比如教唆或密谋结束后罪名就已经成立了，后来说服对方不要去犯罪对罪名的成立没有影响。MPC下完全自愿且有效的放弃可以作为抗辩，但仅仅推迟犯罪是不够的。
Factual impossibility is not a defense to these inchoate offenses, but legal impossibility is a valid defense.
事实不能犯（factual impossibility）不是这些雏形罪的抗辩，但法律不能犯（legal impossibility）是有效的抗辩。
Zhang San attempts to poison Li Si but accidentally buys a defective, non-toxic substance. Li Si consumes it and remains unharmed. Although it was factually impossible for Zhang San to poison Li Si, he is still guilty of attempted murder.
张三企图毒死李四，但不小心买到劣质毒药，根本没有毒性，李四吃了之后安然无恙。虽然事实上张三无法毒死李四，但依然构成未遂罪（attempted murder）。
Zhang San and Li Si conspire to sell marijuana in a certain state, believing it to be illegal there. In reality, marijuana has long been legalized in that state. Zhang San and Li Si are not guilty of conspiracy.
张三和李四共谋在某州销售大麻，他们以为大麻在该州是违法的，其实该州大麻早就合法化了，张三和李四不构成共谋罪。
All inchoate offenses are specific intent crimes. The defendant must have the specific intent to commit the target offense to be guilty.
雏形罪全部都是特定意图犯罪，被告人必须要犯下某种罪行的特定意图才能构成此罪。
Zhang San and Li Si pull the fire alarm to skip class, resulting in a stampede that injures three people. Zhang San and Li Si are guilty of battery, because battery is a general intent crime; although they had no intent to injure, the intent to pull the alarm is sufficient. However, Zhang San and Li Si are not guilty of conspiracy, attempt, or solicitation to commit battery, because their original intent was to skip class, not to cause injury.
张三和李四为了逃课按下了防火警报，结果校园发生踩踏事件导致3人受伤。张三和李四构成伤害罪，因为伤害是一般意图犯罪，虽然他们没有伤害的意图，但只要有按下警报的意图即可。但张三和李四不构成共谋、尝试或者教唆伤害，因为他们本意是逃课而不是造成伤害。
Finally, inchoate offenses can theoretically be paired with strict liability crimes, but they cannot be paired with negligence crimes.
最后，雏形罪理论上可以严格责任犯罪搭配，但这些罪是不能和过失犯罪搭配的。
A state law makes selling alcohol to anyone under 21 a strict liability crime. An undercover police officer who is over 21 presents a fake ID showing an age of 19, and Zhang San still sells alcohol to him. Zhang San can be guilty of attempted sale of alcohol to a minor (attempt, factual impossibility).
某州规定售酒给未满21岁的人是严格责任犯罪。已满21岁的卧底警察出示19岁的假身份证，张三依然售酒，可以构成尝试售酒给未满21岁的人（未遂罪，事实不能犯）。
A state law makes selling alcohol to anyone under 21 a strict liability crime. An undercover police officer who is under 21 presents a fake ID showing an age of 22, and Zhang San still sells alcohol to him. Zhang San can be guilty of selling alcohol to a minor (a strict liability crime), but he is not guilty of attempt because he lacks the specific intent to commit the crime. Zhang San may invoke the defense of entrapment.
某州规定售酒给未满21岁的人是严格责任犯罪。未满21岁的卧底警察出示22岁的假身份证，张三依然售酒，可以构成售酒给未满21岁的人（严格责任犯罪），但不构成未遂罪，因为张三没有犯罪的特定意图。张三可以援引钓鱼执法（entrapment）的抗辩。
Zhang San speeds, which could easily cause a fatal traffic accident, but no accident occurs that day. Zhang San is not guilty of attempted involuntary manslaughter.
张三超速驾驶，很容易造成致命的交通事故，但那天并没有任何交通事故发生，张三不构成尝试犯过失致人死亡罪。
帮助犯Accomplice
Apart from the separate crime of conspiracy, the United States still has a theory of complicity very similar to Chinese criminal law. We call the person who plays a major role in the crime the principal, the person who plays a minor role the accomplice, and those who commit a felony together co-felons. Under common law, accomplices are also known as accessories before the fact.
除了单独的共谋罪，美国依然有一套和中国刑法非常相似的共犯理论。我们把在犯罪中起主要作用的人叫做主犯（principle），起次要作用的人叫做从犯（accomplice），把一同犯重罪的叫做重罪共犯（co-felon）。在普通法下，它们又叫事前的帮助犯（accessory before the fact）。
There are some subtle differences between accomplice liability and conspiracy.
共犯和共谋罪有一些细微的区别。
When Wang Wu is committing a murder, Zhang San encourages him from the sidelines, while Li Si silently hopes in his heart that the victim will be killed. Zhang San does not commit conspiracy; conspiracy is planning a future crime, not joining an ongoing one. Zhang San is an accomplice; although he did not provide actual assistance, he at least provided psychological encouragement. Li Si does not commit a crime.
王五在杀人的时候，张三在一旁怂恿，李四则心里默默地希望被害人被杀死。张三不构成共谋罪，共谋是计划未来犯罪，而不是加入正在进行的犯罪。张三构成共犯，他虽然没有提供实际上的帮助，但至少提供了心理上的帮助。李四不构成犯罪。
Zhang San is a disgruntled museum employee. After hearing a thief's plan to steal exhibits, he intentionally leaves the museum doors unlocked at night. Later, the thief enters the museum through a window to commit the theft. Zhang San does not commit conspiracy because there is no agreement between him and the thief. Zhang San is not an accomplice because he did not provide actual or psychological assistance to the thief.
张三是心存不满的博物馆员工，他听到窃贼关于偷窃展品的计划后，故意晚上没有锁博物馆的门。后来窃贼通过窗户进入博物馆实施偷窃。张三不构成共谋罪的原因是他和窃贼之间没有合意。张三不构成共犯的原因是他没有为窃贼提供实际上或者心理上的帮助。
However, quite different from Chinese criminal law, an ordinary merchant who knows the other party is going to commit a crime and provides assistance is not an accomplice, provided the merchant does not charge an exorbitant price or provide highly specialized assistance.
但和中国刑法很不相同的是，一般的商家明知对方要去犯罪并提供帮助，但商家并没有坐地起价或者提供极为特殊的帮助，不是共犯。
Li Si goes to Zhang San's gun shop to buy a gun to commit murder. Zhang San knows Li Si intends to kill someone but still sells the gun to Li Si at the regular price. Zhang San does not commit a crime.
李四为了杀人去张三的枪店买枪，张三明知李四要杀人，依然把枪原价卖给李四，张三不构成犯罪。
Li Si takes Zhang San's taxi to commit a murder. After Zhang San learns that Li Si intends to kill someone, he charges three times the normal fare. Zhang San is an accomplice to Li Si.
李四为了杀人乘坐张三的出租车，张三知道李四要杀人后，收取了三倍的车费，张三是李四的共犯。
Li Si wants Zhang San's assistance to commit a murder. Zhang San, a surgeon, removes Li Si's fingerprints for the normal price. Zhang San is an accomplice to Li Si.
李四为了杀人想要张三的协助，张三作为外科医生，收取正常价格抹去了李四的指纹，张三是李四的共犯。
Members of a class protected by a specific criminal statute are not accomplices.
被特定刑法法条保护的对象不是共犯。
A state makes it a strict liability crime to sell alcohol to anyone under 21. A minor who buys alcohol is not an accomplice to this crime.
某州规定售酒给未满21岁的人是严格责任犯罪。未成年去买酒不构成该罪共犯。
If the principal is acquitted due to an affirmative defense (such as insanity), the accomplice can still be convicted.
如果主犯因为一些积极抗辩（比如精神失常）脱罪，共犯依然可以被定罪。
An accessory after the fact is similar to the crime of harboring or concealing a criminal in China.
事后帮助犯（accessory after the fact）类似于中国的包庇窝藏罪。
收受赃物罪Receipt of Stolen Property
Receipt of stolen property is similar to the crime of concealing or disguising the proceeds of crime in China.
收受赃物罪（receipt of stolen property）则类似于中国的掩饰隐瞒犯罪所得罪。
Li Si obviously has no money, but suddenly gives Zhang San a large amount of expensive solid gold jewelry. Zhang San knows that this is highly likely Li Si's illegal proceeds, but still decides to accept it. Zhang San commits the crime of receiving stolen property. It should be noted that receiving any unlawfully obtained property can constitute this crime; it does not necessarily have to be stolen.
李四明明没有钱，却突然送给张三一大堆昂贵的纯金首饰，张三知道这大概率是李四不法所得，却依然决定收下，张三构成收受赃物罪。需要注意的是，受收任何赃物都可以构成该罪，并不必然要是偷来的。
Li Si gives Zhang San a ring, saying he just bought it. Later, Zhang San discovers that Li Si stole it, but still decides to keep it. Zhang San does not commit the crime of receiving stolen property.
李四送给张三戒指，说是自己刚买的，后来张三发现李四是偷来的，但依然决定留下。张三不构成收受赃物罪。
Li Si steals a bunch of phones to sell to Zhang San, a fence, but is apprehended by the police before the sale. The police ask Li Si to proceed with the transaction to catch Zhang San. Zhang San does not commit the crime of receiving stolen property because the phones are no longer considered stolen property (inconsistency between subjective intent and objective facts). However, Zhang San can be guilty of attempted receipt of stolen property.
李四偷来一堆手机要卖给赃物贩子张三，但在出售之前被警方擒获，警方要求李四继续交易以抓获张三。张三不构成收受赃物罪，因为这批手机已经不再是赃物（主客观不一致）。但张三可以构成尝试收受赃物罪（未遂罪）。
侵犯人身安全的犯罪Offenses Against the Person
伤害和致残Battery and Mayhem
Battery is very similar to battery in intentional torts, so it will not be elaborated on here. If you have not studied the torts section, referring to intentional injury in Chinese criminal law is also quite similar.
伤害罪（battery）和故意侵权中的伤害十分相似，不再赘述。如果你没有学过侵权篇，参考中国刑法的故意伤害也差不多的。
Valid consent, self-defense, and the use of appropriate force to prevent a crime are defenses to battery.
有效的同意（valid consent）、防卫和用适当武力防止犯罪发生是伤害罪的抗辩。
Mayhem is defined by many states as an aggravated form of battery, and the MBE rarely tests this offense.
致残罪（mayhem）被很多州定义为伤害罪的加重情节，MBE很少考这个罪名。
袭击Assault
Assault is the only offense that can be either a general intent or a specific intent crime. When interpreted as 'an attempt to commit a battery,' assault is a specific intent crime. This is the common law view.
袭击（assault）是唯一一个既可能是一般意图、也有可能是特定意图的罪名。当解释为“打算造成伤害”（an attempt to commit a battery）时，袭击是特定意图犯罪。这是普通法观点。
When interpreted as the 'intentional creation of a reasonable apprehension of imminent bodily harm,' assault is a general intent crime under the majority view.
当解释为“故意让他人遭受立刻会被伤害的恐惧”（intentional creation of a reasonable apprehension of imminent bodily harm）时，袭击在多数观点下是一般意图犯罪。
As in the torts section, mere verbal threats do not constitute assault.
和侵权篇一样，仅仅的言语威胁不构成袭击。
普通法杀人Common Law Murder
Recall that the required mens rea for common law murder is malice, or malice aforethought, defined as follows:
我们还记得，普通法杀人（common law murder）要求的犯罪心态是恶意（malice），或者事前的恶意（malice aforethought），定义如下：
When writing an essay, you can simply list the first four situations.
写论文时可以只列出前4种情况。
Zhang San originally only intended to cut off one of Li Si's hands, but unexpectedly Li Si suffered from hemophilia and bled to death. If not for Li Si's hemophilia, he would not have died. Zhang San is guilty of common law murder; although he lacked the intent to kill, he had the intent to inflict great bodily injury.
张三本来只打算卸李四一只手，没想到李四患有血友病，流血不止身亡。如果不是李四的血友病，他不会死亡。张三构成普通法杀人（murder），虽然张三没有杀人的意图，但他有给对方身体造成严重伤害的意图。
Under common law, if the victim dies more than a year and a day after the suspect's act, the suspect cannot be convicted of murder (the "year and a day" rule).
在普通法下，如果被害人在嫌疑人的行为后一年零一天后才死亡，嫌疑人不成立谋杀（one year plus one day rule）。
故意致人死亡Voluntary Manslaughter
Voluntary manslaughter is a killing committed when the defendant is adequately provoked. Some states also define honest but unreasonable self-defense (e.g., where the defendant initiated the altercation) as voluntary manslaughter.
故意致人死亡（voluntary manslaughter）被告人被足够激怒时杀人。有的州将真诚但不合理的防卫（比如被告人预先挑起事端）也定义为故意致人死亡。
If, at the time of the killing, the defendant:
如果在杀人时，被告人：
Then malice aforethought is negated, and the killing is mitigated to voluntary manslaughter.
那么事前的恶意会被消除，杀人降低为故意致人死亡。
Zhang San plotted to kill his wife. Knowing she was having an affair, he deliberately set up a situation to catch her in the act, pretended to be provoked, and calmly killed her. Because he was not actually provoked, it remains common law murder.
张三想设计杀掉妻子，他知道妻子出轨，故意设计捉奸在床，假装被激怒后冷静地杀掉了妻子。他没有事实上被激怒，依然是普通法杀人（murder）。
Whether the "adequate provocation" requirement is met is usually a question for the jury, not the examinee. Do not put yourself in the shoes of the jury during the exam.
是否满足“足够激怒”通常不会让考生下判断，而是让陪审团下判断，考试时不要把自己代入到陪审团。
Zhang San ran into his ex-girlfriend and her current boyfriend on the street. The current boyfriend verbally provoked Zhang San. Zhang San drew a gun and shot at the boyfriend's arm. The boyfriend dodged, but the bullet hit his heart, killing him. Mere words generally do not constitute adequate provocation. Since Zhang San intended to inflict great bodily injury, the most serious charge is common law murder.
张三在大街上遇到前女友和现男友，现男友言语挑衅张三，张三拔枪射对方胳膊，对方躲子弹，子弹刚好射中心脏死亡。纯粹的言语（mere words）通常不能构成足够地激怒（adequate provocation）。张三既然打算给对方造成严重的身体伤害，最严重的罪名是普通法杀人。
预谋杀人Premeditated Murder
If you haven't often heard of premeditated and deliberated murder, first-degree murder is quite common in American TV shows. Although NCBE questions will provide the definition of first-degree murder for the specific problem, almost all states define premeditated murder as first-degree murder.
如果你不常听说过预谋杀人（premeditated and deliberated murder），一级杀人（first degree murder）在美剧中则相当常见。虽然NCBE的考题会告诉我们该题对一级杀人的定义，但几乎所有州都将预谋杀人定义为一级杀人。
State A defines premeditated murder as first-degree murder and other common law murders as second-degree murder. Zhang San beat Li Si, causing severe injuries. Li Si suffered from hemophilia and bled to death. Zhang San did not intend to kill Li Si; if Li Si did not have hemophilia, he likely would not have died. Because Zhang San lacked the intent to kill, he is not guilty of first-degree murder. However, since he intended to inflict great bodily injury (the second type of malice aforethought), he is guilty of common law murder, which is second-degree murder.
甲州将预谋杀人定义为一级杀人，将其他普通法杀人定义为二级杀人。张三殴打李四造成了严重受伤，李四患有血友病流血过多身亡。张三并没有打算打死李四，如果李四没有血友病，他很可能不会死亡。张三没有杀人的意图，所以不构成一级杀人，但他打算给李四造成严重伤害（事前恶意第2种情形），所以构成普通法杀人，也就是二级杀人。
Although premeditated murder is not a common law offense, it is so common that the MBE might test it directly without providing a statute. The majority view holds that premeditated murder requires at least a brief period of reflection to form the intent to kill. However, the minority view holds that this is not required, in which case premeditated murder becomes indistinguishable from the first type of murder: intent to kill.
预谋杀人虽然不是普通法罪名，但因为太常见MBE有可能不给出法条直接考预谋杀人。多数说认为，预谋杀人要求至少有一小段冷静的时间形成杀意。但少数说认为不需要，那预谋杀人就和杀人的第一种情形打算杀人（intent to kill）没有了区别。
Zhang San wanted to kill Wang Wu. Knowing that Li Si was easily provoked, he told Li Si that Wang Wu was having an affair with Li Si's wife. In a fit of passion, Li Si killed Wang Wu. Zhang San used Li Si's easily provoked nature to make a premeditated and deliberate arrangement to kill, which constitutes premeditated murder. Because Li Si was not calm when he killed Wang Wu, his charge might be mitigated to voluntary manslaughter.
张三想杀掉王五，他知道李四是一个很容易被激怒的人，于是告诉李四说王五和他的妻子有染，李四冲动之下杀掉了王五。张三利用李四容易被激怒的性格提前、冷静地作出了杀人的安排，是预谋杀人。李四杀王五时不够冷静，或许可以降级到故意致人死亡（voluntary manslaughter）。
Kaplan tests first-degree and second-degree murder even when the question does not provide the homicide statute. According to Kaplan, premeditated murder and felony murder are first-degree murder. Intent-to-kill murder without premeditation, intent-to-inflict-great-bodily-injury murder, and depraved-heart murder are second-degree murder.
Kaplan会在题目不告诉你杀人法条的时候考一级杀人、二级杀人。Kaplan认为，蓄谋杀人、重罪杀人是一级杀人。非蓄谋的故意杀人、打算造成严重伤害的杀人、冷血杀人是二级杀人。
Regardless of which view is adopted, premeditated murder is no longer a malice crime but a specific intent crime; there must be an intent to kill to convict for premeditated murder. Intent to inflict great bodily injury, reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life, or killing during the commission of a felony will not constitute premeditated murder in the absence of an intent to kill.
无论采用哪种观点，预谋杀人都不再是恶意意图罪名，而是特定意图罪名，必须要有杀意才能定预谋杀人。打算造成严重的身体伤害、放纵造成人死亡的重大风险或者在犯重罪时杀人，在没有杀意的时候都不会是预谋杀人。
Zhang San ran into his ex-girlfriend and her current boyfriend on the street. The current boyfriend verbally provoked Zhang San. Zhang San drew a gun and shot at the boyfriend's arm. The boyfriend dodged, but the bullet hit his heart, killing him. Zhang San did not form the intent to kill, so under either the majority or minority view, it cannot be premeditated murder.
张三在大街上遇到前女友和现男友，现男友言语挑衅张三，张三拔枪射对方胳膊，对方躲子弹，子弹刚好射中心脏死亡。张三没有形成杀意，无论多数说还是少数说都不可能是预谋杀人。
犯重罪时杀人Felony Murder
Felony murder is a special category of common law murder that is frequently tested, making it necessary to study separately. The key point is that if the defendant causes the death of a victim while committing or attempting to commit burglary, arson, robbery, rape, or kidnapping, it can constitute felony murder under common law. Note that kidnapping was not a common law felony, and some other felonies are not included, so we must memorize these five specific crimes (BARRK), or in a word, forcible felonies.
犯重罪时杀人（felony murder）是普通法杀人的一种特殊情形，考试的频率很高，我们有必要单独学习。其要点是被告人犯下、或打算犯入室犯法（burglary）、放火（arson）、抢劫（robbery）、强奸（rape）和劫持（kidnapping）时造成被害人死亡，可以成立普通法下的犯重罪时杀人。我们注意到劫持并不是普通法重罪，其他一些重罪也没有被列入，所以我们必须单独记忆这5种罪名（BARRK），或者一言以辟之，暴力犯罪（forcible felony）。
Battery and manslaughter are not among the five crimes because they directly satisfy the first or second prong of "malice aforethought," eliminating the need to invoke the felony murder doctrine. Additionally, the underlying felony generally must be distinct from the killing itself.
伤害（battery）和致人死亡（manslaughter）不在5种罪名之列，因为这些直接符合“恶意”的第一条或者第二条，不需要引入犯重罪时杀人的理论。另外，这里的重罪一般要独立于杀人本身（distinct from the killing itself）。
Assault is not a common law felony, but suppose State A defines assault with a deadly weapon as a felony, and defines any death occurring during the commission of an independent felony as murder. Zhang San assaults Li Si with a knife, and Li Si dies of a heart attack from fright. Zhang San is not guilty of felony murder because, although "assault with a deadly weapon" has become a violent felony, it is not sufficiently independent of the killing. Zhang San might be guilty of depraved-heart murder, because a reasonable jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that assaulting someone with a knife demonstrates a reckless indifference to human life. However, if Zhang San robs Li Si with a knife, and Li Si dies of a heart attack from fright, Zhang San commits classic felony murder.
袭击（assault）不是普通法重罪，但甲州把持有武器袭击定义为重罪，然后把犯任何独立重罪（independent felony）时有人死亡定义为杀人。张三持刀袭击李四，李四因心脏病吓死。张三不构成犯重罪时杀人，因为“持刀袭击”虽然变成了暴力重罪，对杀人来说不够独立。张三有可能构成冷血杀人，因为持刀袭击可以被一个合理的陪审团，在排除一切合理怀疑之后，认定为对人的生命漠不关心。但如果张三持刀抢劫李四，李四即使是因心脏病吓死，张三也是经典的犯重罪时杀人。
Felony murder requires that the victim's death be foreseeable, but this is interpreted broadly; for example, accidental killings resulting from resistance or rescue attempts are usually foreseeable.
犯重罪时杀人要求被害人的死亡必须是可预见的，但这里解释较为宽泛，比如反抗或营救导致的误杀通常是可遇见的。
Zhang San's gun accidentally goes off during a robbery, killing the store owner. This is also a typical form of felony murder. If he were not committing a robbery, this would at most be involuntary manslaughter, which carries a much lighter sentence.
张三抢劫时因枪支走火导致店主死亡，这也是典型的犯重罪时杀人形态。如果他不是在抢劫，这顶多也是过失致人死亡，判刑很轻。
After Zhang San and Li Si complete a conspired robbery, Li Si returns to the store alone without prior discussion and kills the store owner. Since the robbery had already ended when Li Si committed the murder, Zhang San is not guilty of felony murder, nor is he an accomplice to the murder.
张三和李四合谋抢劫结束后，李四在没有商量的情况下单独回到商店杀死了店主人。李四杀人时抢劫已经结束，张三不构成犯重罪时杀人，张三也不构成杀人的共犯。
There is an interesting theory regarding felony murder: if the felon reaches a place of temporary safety from police pursuit, any subsequent death is no longer considered felony murder.
犯重罪时杀人有个很有趣的理论：如果重罪犯暂时跑到免于警方追捕的安全的地方（temporary safety），之后导致的死亡结果不再是重罪杀人。
After a robbery, Zhang San returns to his rented apartment, grabs his passport, and flees toward Mexico. The police surround the apartment. At this time, the landlord happens to be carrying a newly purchased pressure cooker to the supermarket for a return; the police mistake it for a bomb and shoot the landlord. Zhang San is not guilty of felony murder because he had already reached a place of safety, even if only temporarily.
张三抢劫后回到自己的出租屋，拿上护照后又往墨西哥潜逃。警察包围了出租屋，此时房东恰好抱着刚购买的高压锅去超市退货，被警方误以为是炸弹，射杀了房东。张三不成立犯重罪时杀人，因为他已经抵达了安全的地方，哪怕是暂时的。
The interplay between felony murder, accomplices, and third parties is frequently tested. The majority view holds that a defendant is not liable for the death of a co-felon.
犯重罪时杀人、共犯和第三人是经常考察的内容。多数说认为被告人不为共犯的死亡负责。
Zhang San and Li Si conspire to commit a robbery, and the police shoot and kill Li Si. The majority view holds that Zhang San is not guilty of felony murder.
张三和李四合谋抢劫，警察击毙了李四，多数说认为张三不成立抢劫时杀人。
However, the defendant is liable for killings committed by a co-felon.
但被告人要为共犯杀的人负责。
Zhang San and Li Si conspire to commit a robbery, and Li Si shoots and kills a police officer. Li Si is guilty of intent-to-kill murder and felony murder. If killing the police officer was part of Zhang San and Li Si's calm and calculated plan, they are also guilty of premeditated and deliberated murder. But even if Zhang San did not intend to kill the police officer, Zhang San is at least guilty of felony murder.
张三和李四合谋抢劫，李四击毙了警察。李四成故意杀人（intend to kill）和犯重罪时杀人（felony murder）。如果击毙警察是张三和李四冷静计划的一部分，则他们也成立预谋杀人（premeditated and deliberated murder）。但如果张三并没有打算击毙警察，则张三至少也成立犯重罪时杀人。
However, there are two views on whether the defendant is liable for accidental killings committed by a third party. The agency theory, which is the default rule on the MBE, holds that the defendant is only responsible for killings committed by a co-felon (acting as their "agent"). In contrast, the proximate cause theory under common law holds that the defendant is liable for all accidental killings because they are foreseeable consequences of the felony.
但被告人是否为第三人的误杀买单则存在两种观点。代理理论（agency theory）是MBE的预设观点，认为只有共犯（作为他的“代理”）杀的人才需要被告人负责。而普通法下的可预见性理论（proximate cause theory）则认为所有的误杀都是被告人可以预见的，所以他需要负责。
Zhang San commits a robbery. A police officer shoots at Zhang San but accidentally kills an innocent bystander, Li Si. Under the agency theory, Zhang San is not guilty of felony murder, whereas under the proximate cause theory, Zhang San is guilty of felony murder.
张三抢劫，警察向张三射击，却误杀了无辜的李四。代理理论认为张三不成立抢劫时杀人，可预见性理论则认为张三成立抢劫时杀人。
Another highly tested point is that attempted murder is a specific intent crime. If there is no intent to kill, there can be no attempted murder. It can be said that proving attempted murder is harder than proving murder.
还有一个特别喜欢考的是，杀人未遂（attempted murder）也是特定意图罪名。如果没有打算杀人，就一定不成立杀人未遂。可以说，证明杀人未遂比证明杀人更难。
During a robbery, Zhang San fires his gun into the air, and a bullet hits Li Si, but Li Si is successfully resuscitated. If Li Si had died, Zhang San would be guilty of felony murder, or possibly depraved-heart murder. However, since Zhang San lacked the intent to kill (acting recklessly at most), and Li Si did not die, Zhang San is not guilty of attempted murder.
张三抢劫时开枪对天扫射，子弹打中了李四，但李四抢救成功。如果李四死亡，张三成立重罪杀人（felony murder），或者也可能存在冷血杀人(depraved-heart murder)。但张三毕竟没有杀人的故意（顶多是鲁莽reckless），所以既然李四没有死亡，张三不成立杀人未遂。
非故意致人死亡Involuntary Manslaughter
Involuntary manslaughter is very similar to the crime of negligent causing of death in Chinese criminal law, and the required mental state of negligence is higher than the negligence in torts. As the only negligence crime we study in the entire criminal law section, we can directly apply the four elements of negligence from the torts section when answering questions.
非故意致人死亡（involuntary manslaughter）和中国刑法的过失致人死亡罪非常类似，其要求的过失心态比侵权篇中的过失要更高一些。作为我们整个刑法篇学的唯一一个过失犯罪，我们可以直接将侵权篇的过失四要件代入做题。
Zhang San insulted Li Si, and Li Si, unable to bear the humiliation, jumped off a building and died. Although Li Si would not have died but for Zhang San's insults (but-for test, actual cause), the jury still has to decide whether Zhang San could have foreseen that his conduct would result in death (proximate cause). If there is no foreseeability, it does not constitute involuntary manslaughter.
张三辱骂李四，李四不堪其辱跳楼死亡。虽然，如果不是因为张三的辱骂，李四不会死亡（but-for test, actual cause），但陪审团依然要决定张三能否预见到自己的行为会带来死亡的后果（proximate cause）。如果没有可预见性，不构成非故意致人死亡罪。
Some states also define a death occurring during the commission of a misdemeanor as involuntary manslaughter (misdemeanor manslaughter).
有的州将犯轻罪时有人死亡也定义为非故意致人死亡（misdemeanor manslaughter）。
Zhang San committed theft, and a store clerk was hit and killed by a car while chasing him. In some states, Zhang San would be guilty of involuntary manslaughter.
张三盗窃，店员为了追逐张三被车撞死，张三在某些州构成非故意致人死亡罪。
非法拘禁False Imprisonment
False imprisonment refers to the confinement of a person's movement without their consent.
非法拘禁（false imprisonment）是指在一个人不同意的情况下约束他的行动。
劫持Kidnapping
Common law kidnapping is the forcible carrying away of a person to a foreign country.
普通法劫持是把人武力送往外国。
Under the modern view, kidnapping is frequently tested in two forms. One is forcing someone to move (movement), even if the extent of this movement is very slight.
现代观点的劫持（kidnapping）常考的两种形态，一种是强迫某人移动（movement），哪怕这种移动的程度非常小。
Zhang San pointed a gun at Li Si and demanded that he walk toward the door. After Li Si took one step, Zhang San committed the crime of kidnapping.
张三用枪指着李四要求其向门口走去，李四迈出一步后张三成立劫持罪。
The other form is concealing a person in a secret place; even without any movement, it constitutes kidnapping. The difference between this and false imprisonment is that this form of kidnapping requires concealment from third parties, whereas mere confinement does not necessarily constitute kidnapping.
另外一种是把人藏到一个秘密的地方，虽然完全没有移动，也构成劫持罪。它和非法拘禁的区别在于这种形态的劫持需要对第三人隐藏，仅仅约束不一定构成劫持。
In order to prevent Li Si's family from finding him, Zhang San paid Li Si $500 to voluntarily live in a secret place for three days. Zhang San is not guilty of false imprisonment or kidnapping because Li Si hid voluntarily.
张三为了让李四的家人找不到李四，支付给李四500美金，让李四自愿在一个秘密的地方生活三天。张三不成立非法拘禁，也不成立劫持，因为李四是自愿藏起来的。
American criminal law does not conflate kidnapping with extortion of property; extortion is a separate crime, which is why I did not translate kidnapping as 'bangjia' (the Chinese term often implying kidnapping for ransom).
美国刑法并没有把劫持和勒索财物混为一谈，敲诈勒索（extortion）是另外的罪名，所以我没有把kidnapping翻译成绑架。
性犯罪Sex Offenses
Under common law, rape is defined as a male having sexual intercourse with a female other than his spouse without her consent.
普通法下的强奸（rape）是指男性未经同意和配偶以外的女性发生性关系。
Today, many states:
现在很多州：
It is necessary to emphasize whether obtaining consent through deception constitutes rape.
需要强调的是通过欺骗取得同意是否构成强奸。
Doctor Zhang San told patient Li Si that sexual intercourse was part of the medical treatment. Li Si agreed to have sexual relations with Zhang San. Zhang San is guilty of rape.
医生张三告诉病人李四说性行为是治疗的一部分，李四同意和张三发生性关系，张三构成强奸罪。
Zhang San told Li Si that he would marry her if she agreed to have sexual intercourse. Li Si agreed to have sexual relations with Zhang San, but Zhang San had no intention of marrying her at all. Zhang San is not guilty of rape.
张三告诉李四说如果李四同意性行为就娶她，李四同意和张三发生性关系，但张三根本不打算娶李四，张三不构成强奸罪。
Statutory rape refers to having sexual relations with a person under a certain age, regardless of whether the other party consents. Most states set the age of consent between 16 and 18, and the exam questions will provide the specific statute. It should be noted that statutory rape is a strict liability crime; it does not matter whether the defendant realized, or even could have realized, that the victim was underage. Interestingly, the vast majority of states require a person to be 21 to buy alcohol, and selling alcohol to someone under 21 is also typically a strict liability crime.
法定强奸罪（statutory rape）是指与不满特定年龄的人发生性关系，无论对方是否同意。大部分州对年龄的规定是16-18岁，题目会给出具体条。需要注意法定强奸罪是严格责任犯罪，被告人是否意识到、甚至是否有可能意识到被害人不满年龄在所不问。有意思的是，绝大多数州要求21岁之后才能买酒，售酒给未满21岁的人通常也是严格责任犯罪。
Other sex offenses are rarely tested, and some have already been abolished in most states. We just need to take a quick look to familiarize ourselves with the English vocabulary.
其他性罪名很少考，一些也已经在大多数州被废除，我们看一眼熟悉一下英文单词即可。
Adultery refers to openly and notoriously cohabiting or having sexual relations with someone other than one's spouse.
通奸（adultery）是指公然（open and notorious）和配偶以外的人同居或发生性关系。
Incest refers to having sexual relations with someone who is too closely related by blood.
乱伦（incest）是指血缘关系太近的人发生性关系。
Bigamy refers to marrying another person while already having a spouse.
重婚（bigamy）是指有配偶的情况下又与其他人结婚。
Seduction refers to having sexual relations with a female of previously chaste character by falsely promising marriage. The subsequent marriage of the parties is usually a valid defense to this crime.
诱骗（seduction）是指谎称打算结婚和处女（female of previously chaste character）发生性关系。双方最终结婚通常是这个罪名的有效抗辩。
Sodomy (sexual acts between individuals of the same sex) and fornication (sexual intercourse between unmarried persons) were common law crimes, but under the modern view, they are no longer considered crimes.
同性间的性行为（sodomy）、没有结婚的人发生性行为（fornication）是普通法罪名，现代观点认为不再是犯罪。
侵犯财产的犯罪Property Crimes
盗窃Larceny
Larceny is the taking and carrying away of another's tangible property with the intent to permanently deprive them of possession. "Taking" means a transfer of possession, and "carrying away" (asportation) can be very slight.
盗窃罪（larceny）是指意图永久剥夺他人对动产（tangible property）的占有，获取并移动该物品的行为。“获取”表示占有转移，“移动”可以非常微小。
Zhang San intends to steal Li Si's car. Immediately after driving it away, he changes his mind and drives it back to return it to Li Si. Li Si says, "I've been meaning to give you this car anyway." Zhang San is guilty of larceny.
张三打算偷李四的车，开走后立刻反悔，于是又开回来还给李四，李四说我早就想把这辆车送给你了。张三构成盗窃。
Zhang San burns Li Si's car. This is not larceny.
张三烧毁李四的车，不是盗窃。
Zhang San drives Li Si's car to a high-crime area and intentionally leaves the keys inside. The next day, it is indeed stolen. Zhang San created a substantial risk of loss, which constitutes larceny.
张三将李四的开到盗贼多发的地区，还故意留下钥匙，第二天果然被偷走。张三给车的灭失创造了显著的风险（substantial risk of loss），构成盗窃。
Under common law, taking property without the intent to steal at the time of the taking, but later forming the intent to permanently deprive, is not larceny. However, the default position on the MBE seems to have shifted to the continuing trespass doctrine. Under this doctrine, if the initial taking was wrongful but without the intent to permanently deprive, and the defendant later forms that intent, it still constitutes larceny.
普通法下，拿走物品的时候没有打算偷窃，之后形成永久占有的意图不是盗窃。但MBE的默认观点似乎已经转变为持续侵占理论（continuing trespass doctrine），在这个理论下，错误（wrongful）拿走物品的当时没有永久占有的意图，之后形成该意图，依然构成盗窃。
Larceny is a specific intent crime. Therefore, if a person believes the property is theirs, or believes they have a right to possess it, even if this belief is unreasonable, as long as it is genuine, they are not guilty of larceny.
盗窃是特定意图犯罪，所以如果以为东西是自己的，或者以为自己有权得到占有物，即使这种认知非常荒谬，但只要是真诚的，依然不成立盗窃罪。
Zhang San gets drunk and mistakenly believes a car is his own, but he actually drives away Li Si's car. This is not larceny.
张三喝醉了酒，误以为是自己的车，实际上开走了李四的车，不是盗窃。
Zhang San borrows Li Si's car with his consent. The next day, Zhang San forms the intent to permanently deprive. This is not larceny. Even under the continuing trespass doctrine, because Zhang San's initial taking of the car was not wrongful, it still does not constitute larceny.
张三经过李四同意借走了李四的车，第二天张三形成了永久占有的意图，不是盗窃。即使按照持续侵占理论，一开始张三并非不法（wrongful）取走了车，依然不构成盗窃。
Zhang San drives away Li Si's car without consent, intending to return it the next day. Because he lacks the intent to permanently deprive the owner of their property, this is not larceny. The next day, Zhang San forms the intent to permanently deprive. Under the continuing trespass doctrine, Zhang San becomes guilty of larceny from that moment.
张三未经同意开走李四的车，打算第二天还回来。因为他没有打算永久剥夺他人所有权的意图，不是盗窃。第二天张三形成了永久占有的意图，根据持续侵占理论，张三从这时起构成盗窃。
抢劫Robbery
Robbery is larceny plus force or threat.
抢劫（robbery）就是盗窃+武力（force）或威胁（threat）。
If force is used, it must be "more than just enough" force to take the property to constitute robbery.
如果用武力，必须要使用“超过刚好”可以拿走财物的武力才构成抢劫。
Li Si is walking down the street carrying a bag. Zhang San catches him off guard, snatches the bag, and runs away. In China, this might be classified as snatching, but in the US, it is larceny, because Zhang San only used "just enough" force.
李四提着包在路上走，张三趁其不备抢走了包扬长而去，这在中国可能被定抢夺罪，在美国属于盗窃，因为张三只使用了“刚好”的武力。
Li Si is walking down the street carrying a bag. Zhang San shoves Li Si to distract him and snatches the bag. In China, this might be classified as snatching, but in the US, it is robbery, because Zhang San used "more than just enough" force.
李四提着包在路上走，张三推了一把李四转移他的注意力并抢走了包，这在中国可能被定抢夺罪，在美国属于抢劫，因为张三使用了“超过刚好”的武力。
If a threat is used, it must be a threat of immediate physical harm to the victim, their family members, or another person present, or a threat to the victim's dwelling. It does not include other economic threats.
如果用威胁，需要是对人身的紧迫威胁，包括被害人自己、家属，或者其他在场的人，也包括被害人的住宅，但不包括其他经济威胁。
Zhang San says to Li Si, "If you don't give me your wallet, I will smash your car to pieces." This is not robbery.
张三对李四说：如果你不把钱包给我，我就把你的车砸的稀烂。这不是抢劫。
Zhang San says to Li Si, "If you don't give me your wallet, I will detonate a bomb in New York." Li Si has no relatives in New York, and the people who would be harmed are not present. This is not robbery. However, the "presence" requirement can be interpreted somewhat broadly; for example, detonating a bomb outside the house might injure passing pedestrians, which could be considered as being present.
张三对李四说：如果你不把钱包给我，我就引爆纽约的一个炸弹。李四并没有任何亲戚在纽约，受到伤害的人也并不在场。这不是抢劫。但在场的要求可以适当宽泛，比如引爆屋外炸弹，可能会炸伤路过的行人，可以考虑为在场。
If the victim does not feel threatened, or does not hand over the property because of the threat, it constitutes attempted robbery.
如果被害人没有感受到威胁，或者不是出于威胁提供了财产，成立抢劫未遂（attemped robbery）。
侵占Embezzlement
Embezzlement is the fraudulent conversion of another's property. It typically requires that the defendant have lawful possession of the property, but not title.
侵占（embezzlement）是指将他人财物永久非法占有。通常要求合法占有（possession）该财物，但并没有所有权（title）。
Borrowing money with the intent to repay, but later failing to do so, is not larceny because the borrower acquired title to the property. By the same logic, it is not embezzlement. It is also not false pretenses because there was an intent to repay at the time of borrowing.
借钱打算还，但之后不还，不是盗窃，因为取得了财产的所有权。同理也不是侵占。也不是诈骗，因为借的时候打算还。
Like larceny, if the property is converted with the intent to return it, it is not embezzlement. However, note that converting money and intending to repay it with different funds is still embezzlement.
和盗窃一样，如果挪用后打算还回来，不是侵占。但要注意，挪用金钱，并用其他的资金归还，依然是侵占。
A lawyer receives $50 in cash from a client for filing fees, which should be deposited into a trust account or paid directly to the court. However, the lawyer gets thirsty that night and only has this $50 in cash on him, so he decides to use it to buy drinks, intending to transfer $50 from his own bank account to the court the next day. The lawyer is guilty of embezzlement because the money he replaces the next day is not the exact same $50 in cash given by the client.
律师收到客户50美元现金的诉讼费，理应存入信托账户或者直接交给法院。但律师当晚口渴，身上只有这50元现金，于是决定用这50元购买饮料，第二天再从自己银行账户转账50元给法院。律师构成侵占罪，因为第二天补上的钱不再是客户给律师的50美元现金。
A lawyer receives $50 in cash from a client for filing fees. The lawyer gets thirsty that night, so he puts the $50 in an envelope and pledges it to the store owner in exchange for drinks. The next day, he pays for the drinks with his own credit card and retrieves the original $50 in cash. Although this still raises professional responsibility issues, it is no longer embezzlement.
律师收到客户50美元现金的诉讼费。但律师当晚口渴，于是将50美元用信封装好，质押给老板换取饮料，第二天用自己的信用卡支付饮料费用并取回原来的50美元现金。虽然依然有职业道德的问题，但不再是侵占罪。
Generally, low-level employees merely have custody of their employer's property, not lawful possession.
一般来说，低级员工只是保管老板的财务，并非合法持有。
An accountant who has custody of the company seal gives it to the boss's rival, knowing the rival will never return it to the boss. This is larceny.
保管公章的会计将公章交给老板的对头，明知道该对头不会再归还给老板，定盗窃。
In contrast, borrowing generally involves lawful possession. Li Si lends his car to Zhang San, and after receiving it, Zhang San decides not to return it. This is embezzlement.
作为对比，借用一般都是合法持有，李四将自己的车借给张三，张三拿到后不打算归还，定侵占。
Zhang San drives away Li Si's car without consent, intending to return it the next day. This is not larceny. The next day, Zhang San forms the intent to permanently deprive. This is not embezzlement because he did not have lawful possession of the property to begin with.
张三未经同意开走李四的车，打算第二天还回来，这不是盗窃。第二天张三形成了永久占有的意图，这不是侵占，因为一开始并非合法持有该财产。
诈骗False Pretenses
False pretenses is the act of obtaining title to another's property by causing the victim to rely on a false representation. The distinction between false pretenses and larceny lies in title versus custody.
诈骗（false pretenses）是指让受害人基于错误认识处分财务的所有权。诈骗和盗窃的区别在于所有权（title）和占有权（custody）。
Zhang San buys a bag with a forged check. The store owner willingly transfers the title of the bag to Zhang San; this is false pretenses.
张三用假支票买了一个包。店家是心甘情愿将包的所有权处分给张三的，这是诈骗。
Zhang San buys a car with a forged check. The owner agrees to let Zhang San drive the car away but states that the title will only be transferred after the check clears. Zhang San takes the car and flees. Zhang San only obtained custody of the car, not the title; this is larceny.
张三用假支票买了一辆车，店主同意张三开走车，但要在支票兑现后才能过户，张三拿到车之后逃之夭夭。张三仅获得了车的占有（custody），没有获得车的所有权（title），这是盗窃。
Li Si asks Zhang San to temporarily watch $5,000 in cash at the station. Zhang San takes the money and flees. This is larceny. Even for cash, the common law does not have a "possession equals title" rule; Li Si did not intend to transfer the title to the money.
李四在车站让张三临时看管5000元现金，张三拿了钱逃之夭夭。这是盗窃。即使是现金，普通法也没有“占有即所有”的规则，李四没有打算处分这些钱的所有权。
In loan scenarios, if there is no intent to repay, it constitutes false pretenses.
在借贷题中，如果不打算还钱，构成诈骗。
Zhang San borrows $100,000 from a bank with absolutely no intention of repaying it; this constitutes false pretenses.
张三找银行借10万元，根本就不算还，构成诈骗。
If one intends to repay but makes a false representation about their ability to repay, it still constitutes false pretenses.
如果打算还钱，但虚假陈述了自己的还款能力，依然构成诈骗。
Zhang San borrows $100,000 from a bank. Although he intends to repay, he provides a forged employment certificate. Zhang San still commits false pretenses: without this employment certificate, the bank might not have approved the loan, or might have approved it at a higher interest rate. This applies unless Zhang San can prove that the misrepresentation was immaterial, meaning the employment certificate would not have affected the bank's decision to approve the loan under the exact same terms.
张三找银行借10万元，虽然他打算还，但是他提供了一份虚假的工作证明。张三依然构成诈骗：如果不是这份工作证明，银行可能不会批准贷款，也可能批准利率更高的贷款。除非张三证明虚假陈述是无关紧要（immaterial）的，也就是这份工作证明不会影响银行批准条件完全一样的贷款。
敲诈勒索Extortion
Under common law, extortion only applied to the corrupt collection of an unlawful fee by a public official under color of office. However, the modern view is very similar to the crime of extortion in Chinese criminal law, which is compelling the victim to part with property by threatening future harm. The difference between extortion and robbery is that the threat in robbery is of imminent, physical harm to a person, whereas extortion can be based on a threat of future harm or a threat against property.
在普通法下，敲诈勒索（extortion）仅适用于公务员索贿的情形。但现代观点和中国刑法的敲诈勒索罪十分类似，即以恶害相通告迫使被害人处分财产。他和抢劫的区别是抢劫罪的威胁是紧迫、现实的人身危险，而敲诈勒索可以基于未来的危险，也可以针对财务进行威胁。
伪造Forgery
Making or altering a false writing with apparent legal significance, with the intent to defraud, constitutes forgery.
制作或者修改足以乱真的、具有法律意义的假文件并有欺骗的意图，构成伪造罪（forgery）。
Zhang San parted on bad terms with his former employer. He writes a letter verifying his employment and forges his former employer's signature. The letter contains no praise or recommendation for Zhang San. Because the letter states only facts, Zhang San lacks the intent to defraud, so this does not constitute forgery.
张三和前雇主不欢而散，他写了一封信证明自己的工作并伪造了前雇主的签名，信里没有赞扬或推荐张三。因为信上都是事实，张三没有欺骗的意图，不构成伪造罪。
Zhang San slips a deed into a stack of unimportant documents for Li Si to sign. Li Si unknowingly signs the document transferring his house to Zhang San. Zhang San is guilty of forgery.
张三将房契（deed）混在一大堆不重要的材料中让李四签字，李四在不知情的情况下签署了将房子转让给张三的文件，张三成立伪造罪。
Zhang San creates a fake university diploma and hangs it on his wall so his relatives and friends think he graduated from a prestigious school. In reality, Zhang San never attended college. This document lacks legal significance in this context, so it does not constitute forgery.
张三制作假的大学毕业证挂在自己家墙上让亲戚朋友都以为自己是名校毕业生，实际上张三没有上过大学，这不具有法律意义，不构成伪造罪。
Zhang San fills in false income on his tax return. This does not constitute forgery. Although the information on the tax return is false, the document itself is not a "false writing" (it is a genuine document containing false information), and Zhang San is authorized to fill out his own tax return.
张三在税务表上填写了虚假的收入，不构成伪造罪。虽然税务表上的信息是错误的，但这不是一份“足以乱真”的假文件，张三本来就有权决定自己的税务表该如何填写。
MPC下广义的盗窃Consolidated Theft under the MPC
The MPC consolidates offenses such as larceny, embezzlement, false pretenses, extortion, and receiving stolen property into a single offense of theft (see MPC § 223.1). All of these are specific intent crimes.
MPC将larceny, embezzlement, false pretenses, extortion和receiving stolen property等罪名合并成theft（参见 MPC § 223.1）。所有这些都是特定意图罪名。
侵犯住宅安宁的犯罪Offenses Against the Habitation
入室犯法Burglary
Burglary is an important offense. We need to remember the six elements under common law: (1) at nighttime, (2) breaking, (3) and entering, (4) of another's, (5) dwelling, (6) with the intent to commit a felony therein.
入室犯法（burglary）是重要的罪名，我们需要记住普通法的六个要件：1、在晚上，2、破坏，3、并侵入，4、他人的，5、住宅，6、并打算在其内犯下重罪。
Burglary is an offense against the habitation. It requires the breaking and entering of a part of the dwelling, not the items inside it. Therefore, opening a watch box does not constitute breaking and entering.
入室犯法是破坏住宅安宁的犯罪，要求侵入的是住宅的一部分，而不是屋内的物品，所以打开装手表的盒子不是破坏和侵入。
A landlord who breaks into a house they own but are currently renting out and is possessed by a tenant can still be guilty of burglary.
房东侵入自己正在出租、由租客占有的房子，依然构成入室犯法。
Li Si robs Zhang San of his laptop. Zhang San intends to break into Li Si's dwelling in the middle of the night to steal his own laptop back, but mistakenly takes Wang Wu's laptop. Because Zhang San did not intend to permanently deprive another of their property, he is not guilty of larceny. Furthermore, because Zhang San lacked the intent to commit larceny at the time of entry, he is not guilty of burglary.
李四抢走了张三的笔记本，张三想半夜侵入李四的住宅偷回自己的笔记本，结果错拿成王五的笔记本。因为张三没有打算永久剥夺他人的财产，所以不构成盗窃。又因为张三侵入的时候没有盗窃的意图，所以也不构成入室犯法。
Zhang San ducks into Li Si's house to escape the rain. He sees jewelry on the table and steals it. Zhang San is not guilty of burglary because he did not have the intent to commit a felony at the time he entered.
张三躲进李四的房子里避雨，看到桌上的珠宝于是盗走，张三不构成入室犯法，他入室的时候没有打算犯法。
Zhang San ducks into Li Si's house to escape the rain. While inside, he opens a closet and steals jewelry. Zhang San is guilty of burglary; the act of opening the closet constitutes a new "breaking and entering." A closet is generally considered part of the structure of the dwelling.
张三躲进李四的房子里避雨，中途打开衣柜并盗走珠宝，张三构成入室犯法罪，打开衣柜的动作是新的“破坏和侵入”。衣柜一般来说是房屋结构的一部分。
Zhang San ducks into Li Si's house to escape the rain. He sees jewelry on the table and steals it. On his way out, he breaks a window. Zhang San is not guilty of burglary; burglary requires "breaking and entering," not "breaking and exiting."
张三躲进李四的房子里避雨，看到桌上的珠宝于是盗走，走得时候打碎了玻璃，张三不构成入室犯法罪，入室犯法要求“破坏并侵入”而不是“破坏并退出”。
放火Arson
Under common law, the malicious burning of the dwelling of another constitutes arson.
普通法下，恶意烧毁他人的住宅构成放火（arson）。
This is the other malice crime besides common law murder, so even without the specific intent to burn the house, a reckless disregard of an obvious risk that the house would burn constitutes arson.
这是除了普通法杀人之外的另一个恶意（malice）犯罪，所以即使没有故意烧房子，放纵房子被烧的显然的风险也构成放火。
The rule for arson questions is that mere charring is sufficient for a conviction, even if the damage is very slight. The word "charring" is very important; mere blackening by smoke or scorching is not enough.
放火题的规则是炭化就足够定罪了（mere charring is sufficient），即使损失非常的小，炭化（charring）这个单词非常重要，如果仅仅熏黑（blackening by smoke）或者烤热（scorching），是不够的。
Zhang San, holding a grudge against his tenant, decided to light "will-o'-the-wisps" around the house at night to scare the tenant. Sparks landed on the house, and Zhang San (the landlord) ignored them, ultimately resulting in partial charring of the house and $100 in damages. Zhang San is guilty of arson.
张三对房客心怀不满，于是想晚上在房子周围点燃“鬼火”吓唬房客，火星溅到房子上房东也置之不理，最终导致房子部分被炭化，损失100美金，张三构成放火罪。
Under common law, burning one's own house is not arson, but many states have now eliminated this requirement, at least allowing an arson conviction when burning a house to commit insurance fraud.
在普通法下，烧自己的房子不是放火，但现在很多州剥离了这个要求，至少在烧房子骗保的时候依然可以定放火罪。
妨碍司法犯罪、职务犯罪Obstruction of Justice and Offenses Involving Public Office
藐视法庭Contempt of Court
A judge can immediately jail someone who disobeys an order in court; this is "civil" contempt of court, so it does not require a jury trial or even an indictment. Judges have considerable authority to impose "civil" contempt, but the duration is generally short, and the detained person can usually be released immediately upon agreeing to comply with the court order. We will learn about this frequently in the later procedural law sections.
法官可以当庭把违背命令的人关押，这是“民事”的藐视法庭，所以不需要陪审团审判，甚至不需要被起诉。法官判“民事”藐视法庭的权限相当大，但一般时间都比较短，被关押的人如果同意遵守法庭命令通常可以立即被释放。我们会在后面的诉讼法中频繁学到。
Zhang San clearly has the ability to pay but refuses to pay the damages awarded by a civil court. The judge can order him to be immediately detained until he is willing to pay, even if such detention without a conviction lasts for 9 years. [*Chadwick
张三明明有能力支付却拒绝支付民事法庭判的赔偿款，法官可以命令立刻将其收押直到其愿意支付为止，哪怕这种未经判决的收押已经长达9年。[*Chadwick
v. Janecka*, 312 F.3d 597 (3d Cir. 2002)]
v. Janecka*, 312 F.3d 597 (3d Cir. 2002)]
Criminal contempt of court refers to the criminal act of disobeying a court order, similar to the crime of refusing to execute court judgments or rulings in China, and requires the full criminal conviction process.
刑事的藐视法庭（contempt of court）是指违背法庭命令的犯罪行为，类似中国的拒不执行法院判决、裁定罪，要走全套的刑事定罪流程。
Zhang San's law license was revoked, but he continued to provide legal services. The bar association sued him in court, and the court enjoined Zhang San from providing legal services until he regained his law license. If Zhang San continues to provide legal services, he commits criminal contempt of court. In some states, the unauthorized practice of law directly constitutes a crime.
张三的律师执业证被吊销却继续提供法律服务，律师协会起诉到法院，法庭判令张三禁止在重新获得律师牌照之前提供法律服务，张三如继续提供法律服务则构成藐视法庭罪。在有的州，非律师执业则直接构成犯罪。
Zhang San and Li Si are going through divorce proceedings, but Zhang San frequently harasses Li Si. The court issues an order prohibiting Zhang San from intentionally coming within 100 meters of Li Si. One day, Zhang San voluntarily goes to Li Si's home. Zhang San commits criminal contempt of court.
张三和李四正在办理离婚手续，张三却经常去骚扰李四，法庭禁止张三主动接近到李四的100米范围之内。某日张三又主动前往李四家中，张三构成藐视法庭罪。
伪证Perjury
Committing perjury in a judicial proceeding constitutes the crime of perjury. The perjured statement must concern a material matter that affects the case.
在司法程序中作伪证会构成伪证罪（perjury）。伪证的事项必须是对案件有实质影响的（material matter）。
To encourage witnesses to tell the truth, correcting a prior perjured statement before the judicial proceeding ends will not result in a perjury prosecution.
为了鼓励证人说真话，在司法程序结束前更正之前的伪证言论不会被追究伪证罪。
Perjury is not limited to testifying in court; any proceeding under oath can potentially lead to this charge, such as an affidavit, deposition, congressional investigation, or committee investigation.
并非只有在法庭上作证才能构成伪证罪，宣誓后的程序都有可能被定这个罪名，比如庭外宣誓（affidavit），取证（deposition），国会调查，委员会调查等。
In the United States, one must swear under oath before a government official that they meet the requirements for marriage to obtain a marriage license, after which a qualified person (usually clergy) officiates the wedding. If someone is already married but swears under oath that they meet the marriage requirements, it may constitute perjury.
在美国，需要在政府官员面前宣誓证明自己符合结婚条件领取结婚许可（marriage license），之后由符合条件的人（通常是神职）主持成婚。如果明明已经结婚，还宣誓说自己符合结婚条件，就可能构成伪证罪。
Inducing another to commit perjury is a separate crime called subornation of perjury; obviously, it also constitutes solicitation.
教唆他人作伪证还有单独的教唆伪证罪（subornation of perjury），显然它同时构成教唆罪（solicitation）.
行贿、受贿Bribery
Under common law, offering and receiving a bribe fall under the same crime (bribery), and it only applies to official actions.
普通法的行贿和受贿是一个罪名（bribery），且只适用于公职行为。
Some state statutes have extended this crime to other public figures. The crime does not require a mutual agreement between the parties; either the briber or the bribee can be guilty of the crime independently.
一些州的法条把这个罪名延伸到其他公众人员。该罪名不要求双方有合意，行贿者或者受贿者可以单独构成犯罪。
知情不报Misprision
Misprision is a common law crime and is no longer a crime in most states.
知情不报（misprision）是普通法罪名，在多数州不再是犯罪。
抗辩Defenses
精神失常Insanity
Insanity is a commonly used criminal defense.
精神失常（insanity）是常用的犯罪抗辩。
The M'Naghten test: If, due to a mental disease or defect, the actor did not know the nature or quality of her actions, or if she did know the nature of her actions but did not know that her actions were wrong, then she is not criminally responsible.
迈克纳顿（M’Naghten）测试：如果行为人因为精神的原因不知道自己行为的本质（nature or quality of her actions），或者虽然知道他行为的本质，却不知道他的行为是错误的，那么他不用负刑事责任。
Zhang San knew he killed someone and knew that killing was wrong, but his mental illness made him unable to control himself. Under the M'Naghten test, Zhang San would still be criminally responsible.
张三知道自己杀了人，也知道杀人是错误的，但是精神失常让他无法控制自己，在M’Naghten测试下，张三依然要负刑事责任。
The irresistible impulse test is completely different from the M'Naghten test; it specifically addresses situations where the defendant is unable to control their actions due to mental illness.
不可抗拒的冲动测试（irresistible impulse test）和迈克纳顿测试截然不同，说的正是被告人因为精神失常无法控制自己的行为。
The test under the MPC combines the two. For a defendant to be acquitted by reason of insanity, they must, as a result of mental disease or defect, lack substantial capacity either to (1) appreciate the criminality (or wrongfulness) of their conduct, or (2) conform their conduct to the requirements of the law.
MPC下的测试结合了两者。如果被告要用精神失常脱罪，他必须在精神疾病的影响下（1）不知道自己的行为是犯罪（unable to appreciate the criminality），或者（2）不能依法约束自己的行为（unable to conform actions to the law）。
Li Si killed Zhang San's mother, and Zhang San, falling into a state of insanity, killed Li Si. He knew he was killing someone but did not believe that killing was a crime. Under the M'Naghten test, Zhang San is exempt from criminal responsibility. In some states, even if Zhang San knew that killing was legally wrong, as long as he believed it was not morally wrong, he could also be exempt from criminal responsibility. Since he can be acquitted under the M'Naghten test, he can also be acquitted under the MPC test.
李四杀了张三的母亲，张三陷入精神失常状况杀了李四，他知道自己在杀人，但不认为杀人是犯罪的。在迈克纳顿测试下，张三免于刑事责任。在有些州，即使张三知道杀人是犯罪的（legally wrong），但只要他认为杀人不违反道德（morally wrong），也可以免于刑事责任。既然在M’Naghten测试下可以脱罪，在MPC下也就可以脱罪。
The Durham test is the broadest test, requiring only that the crime was the product of a mental illness. In other words, as long as it can be proven that "but for the mental illness, the crime would not have been committed," the defendant can be acquitted. Because it is too broad, it is currently only used in New Hampshire, so it is also called the New Hampshire test.
徳罕（Durham）是最宽泛的一种测试，只要犯罪是精神失常带来的结果就行。换句话说，只要能证明“若不是精神失常，就不会犯罪”（but for），被告人就能脱罪。因为太过宽泛，目前只有新罕布什尔州还在使用，所以也叫新罕布什尔测试（New Hampshire test）。
醉酒（吸毒、麻醉）Intoxication (Alcohol, Drugs, Anesthesia)
Voluntary intoxication is a defense to specific intent crimes, requiring that the intoxication negated the specific intent.
主动致醉是特定意图犯罪的抗辩，要求喝醉消除了特定的意图。
Involuntary intoxication is a defense to all crimes and is treated as insanity.
非主动致醉是一切犯罪的抗辩，当做精神失常处理。
Example: Zhang San gets so drunk that he loses his senses and drives away Li Si's car. Li Si steps forward to stop him and is knocked to the ground by Zhang San. Subsequently, Zhang San speeds and hits and kills Wang Wu. Zhang San is not guilty of larceny or premeditated murder, because these two crimes require specific intent. However, he is guilty of battery (general intent) and speeding (if it is a strict liability crime in that state). He may be guilty of common law murder (reckless disregard of an unreasonable risk).
张三喝醉后神志不清，开走李四的车。李四上前阻拦，被张三打到在地。随后超速行驶撞死了王五。张三不构成盗窃和预谋杀人，因为这两个罪要求特定意图。但构成伤害（一般意图）、超速（如果在该州是严格责任犯罪的话）。可能构成普通法杀人（放纵不合理的风险）。
Example: Zhang San wants to kill Li Si, but worries he might be afraid, so he drinks to build up his courage and kills Li Si while drunk. Zhang San is guilty of premeditated murder. Although Zhang San was drunk, it did not negate his specific intent to kill, so he is still convicted of premeditated murder.
张三想要杀掉李四，但担心自己害怕，于是喝酒壮胆，在喝醉的情况下杀掉了李四。张三构成预谋杀人。虽然张三已经喝醉，但并没有消除杀人的特定意图，依然定预谋杀人。
Example: Zhang San drinks a glass of orange juice laced with cocaine by someone else, Li Si is forced to drink a bottle of liquor, and Wang Wu takes a prescription drug mistakenly prescribed by a doctor at 100 times the dosage. Under the influence of drugs (alcohol, medication), they are unable to control their actions or realize that their actions are unlawful, and all are exempt from criminal punishment.
张三喝下一杯被人掺了可卡因的橙汁，李四被人强迫灌下一瓶白酒，王五服用了医生误开了100倍剂量的处方药。他们在毒品（酒精、药物）的影响下无法控制自己的行为也无法意识到自己的行为是非法的，均免于刑事惩罚。
未成年Infancy
Many states have their own regulations regarding juvenile delinquency and have established juvenile courts, which focus on education rather than punishment, to hear specific juvenile cases. We only need to remember the common law rules.
很多州都有自己的关于未成年人犯罪的规定，并且对设立了以教育为主、惩罚为辅的少年法庭（juvenile courts）审理特定未成年的案件，我们只需要记得普通法的规定即可。
Under common law, a child under the age of 7 has absolutely no criminal capacity (infancy). A child between 7 and 14 is presumed not to know their actions are wrong, unless the prosecutor can rebut this presumption with clear evidence. Additionally, a child under 14 cannot be convicted of rape. Minors over 14 are treated the same as adults.
在普通法下，7岁以下的小孩绝对没有刑事责任能力（infancy）。7-14岁的小孩预设不知道自己的行为是错误的，除非检察官能用清晰地证据反驳这个预设。此外14岁以下的小孩不可以被定强奸罪。14岁以上的未成年和成年人一样看待。
正当防卫Self-Defense
防卫自己Defense of Self
Self-defense is very similar to Chinese law. A defendant without fault who reasonably believes they are threatened with imminent bodily harm may use necessary nondeadly force to protect themselves. The defendant has no duty to retreat, even if retreating would save them from harm. The expression "reasonably believes" indicates that putative self-defense (an honest and reasonable mistake) is generally recognized.
自我防卫（self-defense）和中国的法律非常类似。无过错的被告人合理相信他遭受紧迫的人身伤害的威胁，则可以使用必要的非致命的武力来保护自己（necessary nondeadly force）。被告人没有义务撤退（no duty to retreat），哪怕撤退可以让他免受伤害。“合理相信”的表述说明假想防卫通常是被认可的。
However, the use of deadly force requires meeting three conditions:
但使用致命性武力（deadly force）则需要满足三个条件：
Even when using deadly force, the majority view still holds that the defendant has no duty to retreat. The minority view holds that there is a duty to retreat only if it is completely safe to do so and there is a place to retreat to.
即使是使用致命武力，多数说依然认为被告人没有义务撤退。少数说认为只有在撤退完全安全、且有地方可以退的时候才有义务撤退。
Example: Zhang San is in his own home. Li Si holds a knife and says to Zhang San, "I'm going to kill you." Zhang San shoots and kills Li Si with a gun. One's own home is considered a place where one "cannot retreat further." Regardless of which view is adopted, Zhang San has no duty to retreat.
张三在自己家中，李四持刀对张三说：“我要杀了你”，张三用枪射杀李四。自己家中属于“退无可退”，无论采取哪种学说，张三都没有义务撤退。
Based on the above conditions, if the defendant is the initial aggressor, they usually cannot claim self-defense, but there are two exceptions:
根据上述条件，如果被告人是首先挑起事端的人，通常是不能抗辩以自我防卫的，但有两个例外：
Imperfect self-defense sometimes, although not completely exempting the defendant from criminal liability, can reduce a murder charge to voluntary manslaughter.
防卫过当（imperfect self-defense）有时候虽然不能完全免于刑法，但是可以把杀人降低为故意致人死亡（voluntary manslaughter）。
防卫他人Defense of Others
If a third party has the right to self-defense, the defendant can assert the defense of others.
第三人如果有自我防卫的权利，被告人可以主张防卫他人（defense of others）的抗辩。
If the third party does not actually have the right to self-defense, can the defendant claim that they "reasonably believed the third party had the right to self-defense"? The majority view holds that they can.
如果第三人没有权利自我防卫，被告人能否主张“合理地认为第三人有权利自我防卫”呢？多数说认为可以。
Example: Li Si's character is being chased and killed by Wang Wu. Zhang San, unaware that they are filming a movie, shoots and kills Wang Wu. The majority view holds that if Zhang San could reasonably believe in the situation that Li Si had the right to defend himself, he can claim defense of others.
李四扮演的角色被王五追杀，张三不知道是在拍戏射杀了王五。多数说认为如果张三在当时的情境中能够合理认为李四有防卫的权利，可以主张防卫他人。
防卫住所Defense of Dwelling
A defendant may use reasonable nondeadly force to defend their dwelling.
被告人可以使用合理的非致命的武力防卫自己的住所。
A defendant may also use deadly force to defend their dwelling in the following two situations:
被告人还可以在下面两种情况使用致命的武力防卫自己的住所：
防卫财产Defense of Property
A defendant may use reasonable nondeadly force to defend property when they reasonably believe there is an imminent danger of unlawful interference with the property, but they may never use deadly force.
被告人在合理相信财产有立刻侵害的危险时可以用合理的非致命武力防卫财产，但不可以使用致命的武力。
紧急避险Necessity
Necessity is an act committed out of necessity to avoid a greater, imminent harm. The reasonableness of the defendant's conduct must be viewed objectively from the perspective of a third party; merely acting in good faith is not enough. Furthermore, necessity can never be used as a defense for harming a person.
紧急避险（necessity）是为避免造成更大的、紧急的损害而不得已的行为。要站在第三人的角度客观地看被告人的行为是否合理，仅仅善意地进行避险是不够的。此外永远不能用伤害人来进行紧急避险。
Zhang San has no food on a deserted island. He can eat protected animals, but he cannot eat humans.
张三在荒岛上没有食物，他可以吃保护动物，但不能吃人。
胁迫Duress
If subjected to an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm, duress can be used as a defense to any crime except intentional homicide.
如果遭受紧迫的死亡或严重伤害的威胁，胁迫（duress）可以用来抗辩除了故意且有人死亡（intentional homicide）以外的犯罪。
The traditional view is that a threat to property does not constitute duress, but the modern view allows it as a defense to crimes that cause lesser harm.
传统观点认为对财产的威胁不构成胁迫，但现代观点可以用来抗辩造成损失更小的犯罪。
认识错误Mistake
A reasonable mistake of fact can be used to negate criminal intent, so it does not apply to strict liability crimes.
合理的事实认识错误（reasonable mistake of fact）可以用来消除犯罪意图，所以严格责任犯罪不适用。
Zhang San intends to kill Li Si, but actually kills Wang Wu. Although there is a mistake of fact here, Zhang San's criminal intent is not altered by the factual mistake, so it does not constitute a defense.
张三想杀李四，但其实杀死的是王五，虽然这里有事实错误，但张三的犯罪意图没有因为事实错误而改变，不构成抗辩。
An unreasonable mistake of fact, as long as it is honest (an honest but unreasonable mistake), can serve as a defense to specific intent crimes.
不合理的事实认识错误，只要是真诚的（honest but unreasonable mistake）可以作为特定意图的犯罪的抗辩。
Mistake of law is generally not a defense, but there are a few exceptions.
法律认识错误（mistake of law）通常不能成为抗辩，但有少量例外。
Zhang San and Li Si agree to a duel, and Zhang San kills Li Si. He believes that a fair duel is lawful. This is a mistake of law and does not constitute a defense.
张三和李四约好决斗并杀死了李四。他以为公平的决斗是合法的，这是法律认识错误，不构成抗辩。
The prosecution charges the defendant with violating a law that has been passed by the legislature but not yet published, which prohibits the defendant from being hungover on the street. This violates due process, unless the act is inherently evil (malum in se), such as murder or arson, which one can easily know is illegal without publication.
检方起诉被告人违反一条议会已经通过，但尚未公布的法律，这条法律禁止被告人在大街上宿醉。这是违反正当程序的，除非是本质上就邪恶的行为（malum in se, inherently evil），比如杀人、放火，不需要公布也可以轻易知道是违法的。
After the defendant is charged with marijuana possession, the trial court rules that the law criminalizing marijuana possession is invalid. The defendant then purchases marijuana a second time. Later, the prosecution successfully appeals and overturns the trial court's decision. Although the first possession of marijuana remains a crime, the second purchase was based on reliance on the invalidity of the law and should not be deemed a crime.
被告人被起诉持有大麻后，一审法院认为持有大麻犯罪的法律无效。被告人于是第二次购买大麻。后来，检方成功上诉推翻了一审判决。虽然第一次持有大麻依然是犯罪，但第二次购买大麻是基于对法律无效的信赖，不宜认定为犯罪。
钓鱼执法Entrapment
If the defendant would not have committed the crime and was not predisposed to commit it but for the inducement of law enforcement officers, entrapment can be used as a defense.
如果不是执法人员的引诱，被告人不会犯罪，也没有准备犯罪，可以用钓鱼执法（entrapment）作为抗辩。
The police know the defendant is selling drugs, so they approach the defendant to buy some. The defendant immediately produces the drugs and completes the transaction. Although the transaction would not have occurred but for the police's offer, the defendant was clearly predisposed to commit the crime, so entrapment cannot be used as a defense.
警方知道被告人在出售毒品，于是就找被告人去购买，被告人当即掏出毒品并完成交易。虽然如果不是警方的要约，这笔交易不会存在，但被告人显然已经为犯罪作了准备，不能用钓鱼执法作为抗辩。
At a hearing, the committee chairman tells a witness that he has the right to refuse to testify, so the witness refuses. In fact, the witness has no right to refuse. The prosecution then charges and convicts the witness for refusing to testify. The Supreme Court held that the witness reasonably relied on an official interpretation and committed the unlawful act; this constitutes "entrapment by estoppel," which is an exception to the "mistake of law" rule, and therefore he cannot be convicted. [Raley v. Ohio, 360 U.S. 423 (1959)]
在听证会上，委员会主席告诉证人有权拒绝作证，证人于是拒绝作证。实际上，证人无权拒绝作证。于是检方以拒绝作证为由起诉该证人并定罪。最高法院认为，证人合理信赖了官方的解释而实施了违法行为，这属于“禁止反言的诱惑”（entrapment by estoppel），是“法律认识错误”的例外，因此不能被定罪。[Raley v. Ohio, 360 U.S. 423 (1959)]
合并Merger
As we have learned, among the three inchoate crimes, solicitation and attempt merge into the completed crime, but conspiracy does not merge. The three inchoate crimes also do not merge with one another.
我们已经学过，在三个雏形罪中，教唆和未遂会被主罪合并，但共谋不会合并。三种雏形罪相互之间也不会合并。
Questions often imply that larceny merges into robbery, and that battery, assault, or causing death merges into homicide. Some textbooks also suggest that false imprisonment merges into the second type of kidnapping (hiding a person). However, the U.S. does not actually have a clear-cut merger doctrine for these offenses; a person can absolutely be charged with both larceny and robbery simultaneously, and if convicted of both, the judge can simply run the sentences concurrently during sentencing. Therefore, official exam questions will not test the merger of multiple distinct offenses. The typical testing method is to list different offenses by severity and ask the examinee to select the most serious crime the defendant could potentially be convicted of.
经常有题目会暗示你，盗窃会被抢劫合并，伤害、袭击、致人死亡会被杀人合并。有的教材还认为，非法拘禁罪会被劫持罪的第二种情况（将人隐藏起来）合并。但美国其实没有清晰的合并原则，一个人完全可以被同时起诉盗窃和抢劫，如果都被定罪，法官在量刑的时候合并刑期即可。所以正式的考题并不会考察多个罪名之间相互合并的情况，一般的考察方式是，按照严重程度列出不同的罪名，让考生选有可能犯下的最严重的罪名。
In the Criminal Procedure section, we will also learn that once a defendant has been prosecuted for an offense, they generally cannot be subsequently prosecuted for a lesser or greater included offense.
到刑诉篇，我们还会学习一个罪名被起诉过后，通常也不得以更轻或更重但相互包含的罪名再次被起诉。