{"id":752,"date":"2012-05-01T11:52:32","date_gmt":"2012-05-01T15:52:32","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/?p=752"},"modified":"2012-05-01T12:00:16","modified_gmt":"2012-05-01T16:00:16","slug":"state-v-hayes","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/state-v-hayes\/","title":{"rendered":"State v. Hayes, 105 Mo. 76, 16 S.W. 514 (1891)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>Case Name: <\/strong>State v. Hayes<br \/>\n<strong>Citation: <\/strong>105 Mo. 76, 16 S.W. 514 (1891)<\/p>\n<p><strong>Facts:<\/strong> Hayes, the defendant, proposed to Hill to rob a general store. The store was owned by Hill\u2019s relatives but Hill agreed in order to entrap Hayes. Hayes opened up the window and Hill climbed in, handed Hayes a side of bacon. Hayes was then arrested.<\/p>\n<p><strong>State\u2019s argument: <\/strong>Hayes was guilty of burglary because he, with a felonious intent, assisted and aided Hill to enter the building.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Defendant\u2019s argument: <\/strong>Hayes cannot be guilty of the act of Hill because Hill\u2019s act was not criminal. Hill did not enter the store with intent to steal and therefore, Hill did not commit a crime.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Holding: <\/strong>Judgment was reversed and remanded for a new trial on a count of petit larceny for \u201ctaking and removing the bacon after it was handed to him.\u201d<\/p>\n<p><strong>Reasoning: <\/strong>The intent of the conspirators matters. \u201cTo make defendant responsible for the acts of Hill, they must have had a common motive and common design.\u201d<\/p>\n<p><em>The Common Law required mutuality or the same mens rea. Under the Model Penal Code (MPC), both parties do not need the same mens rea. Therefore, Hayes could be convicted under the MPC.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Case Name: State v. Hayes Citation: 105 Mo. 76, 16 S.W. 514 (1891) Facts: Hayes, the defendant, proposed to Hill to rob a general store. The store was owned by Hill\u2019s relatives but Hill agreed in order to entrap Hayes. Hayes opened up the window and Hill climbed in, handed Hayes a side of bacon. &hellip; <\/p>\n<p class=\"link-more\"><a href=\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/state-v-hayes\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &#8220;State v. Hayes, 105 Mo. 76, 16 S.W. 514 (1891)&#8221;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[146,145],"tags":[170],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v15.1.1 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>State v. Hayes, 105 Mo. 76, 16 S.W. 514 (1891) -<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Case Brief: Hayes, the defendant, proposed to Hill to rob a general store. The store was owned by Hill\u2019s relatives but Hill agreed in order to entrap Hayes.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/state-v-hayes\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State v. Hayes, 105 Mo. 76, 16 S.W. 514 (1891) -\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Case Brief: Hayes, the defendant, proposed to Hill to rob a general store. The store was owned by Hill\u2019s relatives but Hill agreed in order to entrap Hayes.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/state-v-hayes\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"MiB Law\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2012-05-01T15:52:32+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2012-05-01T16:00:16+00:00\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/#website\",\"url\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/\",\"name\":\"MiB Law\",\"description\":\"Lawschool Notes and Outlines\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/?s={search_term_string}\",\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/state-v-hayes\/#webpage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/state-v-hayes\/\",\"name\":\"State v. Hayes, 105 Mo. 76, 16 S.W. 514 (1891) -\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2012-05-01T15:52:32+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2012-05-01T16:00:16+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/#\/schema\/person\/14950d73730da8ecbd5b2d2690155373\"},\"description\":\"Case Brief: Hayes, the defendant, proposed to Hill to rob a general store. The store was owned by Hill\\u2019s relatives but Hill agreed in order to entrap Hayes.\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/state-v-hayes\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/#\/schema\/person\/14950d73730da8ecbd5b2d2690155373\",\"name\":\"Andrew\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/#personlogo\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"url\":\"http:\/\/1.gravatar.com\/avatar\/7e4456f2e886e2b22adb13ba439e70ed?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Andrew\"},\"sameAs\":[\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/\",\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/miblaw\"]}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/752"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=752"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/752\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":755,"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/752\/revisions\/755"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=752"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=752"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=752"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}