All Flashcards
Specific Intent Crimes
Students Can Always fake A Laugh, Even For Ridiculous Bar Facts
Solicitation Conspiracy Attempt First Degree Murder Assault Larceny Embezzlement False Pretenses Robbery Burglary Forgery
Qualify for voluntary intoxication and UNREASONABLE mistake of fact defense
SPECIFIC INTENT: doing the act with a conscious intent or objective
Malice Crimes
Require reckless indifference
Murder (first and second) and Arson
General Intent
All others, unless if they qualify for strict liability
MPC labels it as “recklessness” – concious disregard of a substantial or justifiable risk (know of a high likelihood)
Strict Liability
No intent required. If question does not state “knowingly, willfully, or intentionally,” it is SL
Accomplice Liability
One who aids, advises, or encourages the principal in the commission of a crime
Must have the requisite intent to commit the crime
Liable for the crime itself and ALL OTHER foreseeable crimes
Accomplice Withdrawal
if encouraging, must repudiate encouragement
if aiding and abetting (like giving materials), must do everything possible to neutralize the assistance
May also contact the police as an alternate means of withdrawal
Solicitation
- Specific intent that solicited person commit the crime. INCITING, COUNSELING, ADVISING, URGING, OR COMMANDING ANOTHER TO COMMIT A CRIME (can be implied!)
- Does not require that the person solicited agree to commit the crime. Once agrees, it becomes conspiracy and solicitation merges into conspiracy
- Factual impossibility is NOT a defense
Conspiracy
- An agreement, with an intent to agree, and intent to pursue an unlawful objective
- Intent may be IMPLIED. Does not need to be express
- DOES NOT MERGE
- Each conspirator is liable for all the crimes of co-conspirators if those crimes were foreseeable and in furtherance of the conspiracy
- Factual impossibility is not a defense
- Withdrawal cannot relieve from conspiracy itself. Withdrawal only relieves of co-conspirators’ subsequent crimes
Bilateral vs. Unilateral Conspiracy Approach
Traditional rule required two guilty parties. “Meeting of guilty minds.”
Unilateral approach (MPC approach and modern trend) requires only that one person have a genuine criminal intent
Overt Act Requirement
Majority rule for conspiracy is that there must be an agreement plus some OVERT ACT in furtherance of the conspiracy. Minority rule is that the agreement itself is enough
-Minority rule is that mere preparation is enough. Overt Act requires more than mere prep. a substantial step.
Attempt
- Specific intent plus an overt act in furtherance of the crime.
- Must be substantial step, more than mere preparation
- Abandonment defense
- Legal impossibility is a defense. Factual impossibility is not
Abandonment Defense
- Defense to attempt.
- Majority rule: once D has taken a substantial step toward committing the crime, abandonment is never a defense.
- MPC: allows for abandonment if it is fully voluntary and a complete renunciation of criminal purpose
Insanity Defense (4 Types)
Fed courts require clear and convincing, MPC requires BRD, most states require preponderance of the evidence
- M’Naughten Rule: D lacked the ability to know the wrongfulness of his actions or understand the nature and quality of his actions
- Irresistible Impulse: D lacked the capacity for self control and free choice to control his impulses
- Durham Rule: D’s conduct was a product of mental illness. But for the mental illness, the crime would not have occurred. Broader than former 2
- ALI/MPC: D lacked the ability to conform his conduct tot he requirements of law or appreciate the criminality of his conduct. Combo of M’Naughten and Irresistible Impulse.
Voluntary Intoxication
- Intentional taking without duress of a substance known to be intoxicating
- Defense only to specific intent crimes
Involuntary Intoxication
- Unknowingly taking an intoxicating substance or being intoxicated under duress
- Defense to all crimes if meets insanity test for that specific jurisdiction
Infancy Defense
- Under age 7, no criminal liability whatsoever
- Under age 14, rebuttable presumption of no criminal liability
Use of Deadly Force
Majority Rule: Victim may use deadly force in self-defense anytime the victim reasonably believes that she is threatened with imminent death or great bodily harm
Minority Rule: victim required to retreat if it is safe to do so. However, no duty to retreat from (1) your home, (2) if you are the victim of a rape or robbery, (3) or a police officer making a lawful arrest
Can’t use deadly force to defend your property or dwelling. Only can use deadly force to prevent a violent entry coupled with personal attack on herself or another, or felony
Use of nondeadly force
justified when it appears necessary to avoid imminent injury or to retain property
Original Aggressor and Self Defense
If aggressor, self-defense only allowed if (1) effectively withdraws and communicates to the other her desire to do so, OR (2) the victim of the initial aggression suddenly escalates a minor fight into a deadly altercation and does so w/o giving the aggressor opportunity to withdraw
Defense of Others
- D can raise a defense of others defense if he reasonably believes that the person assisted would have had the right to use force as his own defense
- Majority rule does not require a special relationship between D and victim in order to invoke defense
Duress
- threats to all crimes except homicide crimes
- Defense if (1) person acts under the threat of imminent infliction of death or great bodily harm, and (2) that belief is reasonable
- Threats to third person may suffice to establish duress defense
Necessity
- Duress involves human threat, necessity involves natural forces
- Defense of necessity exists if person reasonably believed that commission of the crime was necessary to avoid a greater societal harm than that involved in the crime
- Traditional view required natural forces, modern cases have started abandoning natural requirement
