Crim Law

Question 1

Crim Law

Under modern view, does solicitation merge into completed crime?

Answer 1

Yes, can’t be convicted of both solicitation and completed crime

Question 2

Crim Law

Under modern view, does attempt merge into completed crime?

Answer 2

Yes, can’t be convicted of both attempt and completed crime

Question 3

Crim Law

Under modern view, does conspiracy merge into completed crime?

Answer 3

No - you can be convicted of both conspiracy to commit the crime and the crime itself

Question 4

Crim Law

Under modern view, can you be convicted of multiple inchoate crimes?

Answer 4

No, if your conduct was going to culminate in the same main offense, you can’t be convicted of multiple inchoate offenses; can’t be convicted of conspiracy to commit robbery and attempted robbery

Question 5

Crim Law

Can corporations be held liable for crimes?

Answer 5

Traditionally, held corporations do not have the capacity to commit crimes

But under modern statutes, corporations may be held liable for an act performed by:
(1) an agent of the corporation acting within the scope of their office or employment, or
(2) a corporate agent high enough in hierarchy to presume their acts reflect corporate policy

Question 6

Crim Law

With accomplices, who are the parties to a crime?

Answer 6

Traditionally, (4) were possible:

Principals in the first degree: A person who actually engaged in the act or omission that contitutes the offense or who caused an innocent agent to do so

Principals in the second degree: Persons who aided, advised, or encouraged the principal and were present at the crime

Accessories before the fact: Persons who assisted or encouraged but were not present

Accessories after the fact: Person who, with knowledge that the other committed a felony, assisted them to escape arrest or punishment

BUT with modern statutes:
(3) are possible: principal, accomplice, accessory after the fact

Principal: one who, with the requisite mental intent, actually engages in the act or omission that causes the criminal result

Accomplice: one who aids, advises, or encourages the principal in the commission of the crime charged; they are liable for principal crime if accomplice intended to aid or encourage the crime

Accessory after the fact: one who assists another knowing that they have committed a felony in order to help them escape; separate than above; liable for separate, less serious crime of being an accessory after the fact

Question 7

Crim Law

Who can be found guilty of the principal offense when it comes to accomplice liability?

Answer 7

Modern: The prinicipal and accomplice can be convicted of the principal crime; an accessory after the fact can be found liable for a separate, lesser charge, not the principal crime

Traditionally, it was that conviction of the principal was required for conviction of an accessory (but most jurisdictions have abandoned this requirement)

Question 8

Crim Law

What are the elements of conspiracy?

Answer 8

A conspiracy requires:
(1) an agreement between two or more persons;
(2) an intent to enter into the agreement; and
(3) the intent by at least two persons to achieve the objective of the agreement (specific intent crime)

A conspiracy is complete when the agreement with the requisite intent was reached; no act needed

Question 9

Crim Law

What type of act is needed to complete a conspiracy?

Answer 9

Traditionally, no act was needed - the conspiracy was complete when the agreement with the requisite intent was reached

But modern: Yes, an overt act is required but it can be mere preparation

Question 10

Crim Law

For a conspiracy, does the agreement have to be express?

Answer 10

No, can be inferred; doesn’t need to be an express thing

Question 11

Crim Law

Under traditional view, for a conspiracy to exist, what must the mindsets be of the parties when agreeing?

Answer 11

Traditionally was bilateral approach: requires two guilty minds; the people have to actually be committed to the illicit plan; the two parties have to have a specific intent to pursue an unlawful objective

But modern statutes it’s unilateral approach: Only one party needs to have a guilty mind for there to be a conspiracy; only one person needs to have the genuine criminal intent; so a defendant can be convicted of conspiracy if they are conspiring with an undercover cop or one person isn’t really planning on doing anything

Question 12

Crim Law

Under traditional view, what must the mindsets be of the parties agreeing

Question 13

Crim Law

In a trial for conspiracy, what happens if some/all of the conspiracy members are acquitted?

Answer 13

If there is an acquittal of all persons with whom a defendant is alleged to have conspired with, the remaining defendanat can’t be convicted either

So if defendant is charged and tried, and all the others have been acquitted, the defendant can’t be convicted because then there is no one for him to conspire with

But in some states, if one defendant has already been convicted, but then his co-conspirator is acquitted in another trial, the convicted defendant’s conviction may be allowed to stand - it wouldn’t get reversed then

Question 14

Crim Law

Can one co-conspirator be held liable for crimes committed by the other co-conspirators?

Answer 14

Yes, if the crimes:
(1) were committed in furtherance of the objectives of the conspiracy; and
(2) were foreseeable

Question 15

Crim Law

Is factual impossibility a defense to conspiracy?

Answer 15

No, factual impossibility is not a defense to conspiracy - so just because you could not actually commit the crime (you were planning on robbing something that isn’t actually there, for ex), you can still be convicted of the conspiracy

Question 16

Crim Law

Is withdrawal a defense to conspiracy?

Answer 16

No, not generally - because the conspiracy is completed as soon as the act is made and an act in furtherance is performed

BUT: can be a defense to crimes committed in furtherance of the conspiracy, including the one you’re conspiring to do

So you can be found guilty of conspiracy but not the other crimes if you withdraw

Question 17

Crim Law

With conspiracy, what would constitute an effective withdrawal from further crimes?

Answer 17

For a withdrawal to be effective:
(1) you must perform an affirmative act that notifies all members of your withdrawal,
(2) notice must be given in time for members to abandon their plans, AND
(3) you must try to neutralize any assistance given

Question 18

Crim Law,

What constitutes solicitation?

Answer 18

Solicitation consists of asking, inciting, counseling, advising, urging, or commanding another to commit a crime with the intent that the person solicited commit that crime

Question 19

Crim Law,

What impact does others’ convictions or acquittals have on the solicitation conviction?

Answer 19

It is not a defense - if the person who was solicited is not convicted, you the solicitor can still be convicted; different from conspirators

Question 20

Crim Law

Is factual impossibility a defense for solicitation?

Answer 20

No, not a defense. Does not matter if the offense solicited could not in fact have been successful.

Question 21

Crim Law

Is withdrawal/renunciation a defense to solicitation?

Answer 21

Traditionally, no, in most jurisdictions, it is not a defense that the solicitor (the one soliciting) renounces or withdraws from the solicitation; not a defense that they back away from the deal

With modern statutes: still generally no, but the MPC recognizes renunciation as a defense if the defendant prevents the commission of the crime, such as by persuading the person who was solicited not to commit the crime

Question 22

Crim Law

How does legislative intent come into play with solicitation charges?

Answer 22

It is a defense that the solicitor could not be found guilty of the completed crime because of a legislative intent to exempt them - so if a statute is designed to protect a group, they can’t be found guilty of solicitation for that crime

Ex: minor female can’t be found guilty of solicitation of statutory rape by urging an adult male to ahve sex with her because she could not be found guilty of the ultimate crime, statutory rape

Question 23

Crim Law

What happens if the person solicited commits the crime solicited?

Answer 23

Both that person who was solicited and the solicitor can be held liable for that crime

Question 24

Crim Law

What happens if the person solicited commits acts sufficient to be liable for attempt?

Answer 24

Both parties, the solicitor and solicited, can be held liable for attempt (remember solicitation and attempt can’t both be convicted, so it would be one or the other)

Question 25

Crim Law What happens if the person solicited agrees to commit the crime, but doesn't end up commiting acts sufficient for attempt?

Answer 25

Both parties can be held liable for conspiracy

Question 26

Crim Law What is an "attempt" and what does it require?

Answer 26

An act, done with intent to commit a crime, that falls short of completing the crime Requires (1) specific intent plus (2) an overt act in furtherance of the crime

Question 27

Crim Law What is intent element in an "attempt"?

Answer 27

Defendant must intend to perform an act and obtain a result that, if acheived, would constitute a crime Regardless of the intent necessary for the completed offense, an attempt always requires a specific intent (intent to commit the crime)

Question 28

Crim Law Under traditional view, what is the overt act needed to constitute an "attempt"?

Answer 28

The defendant must commit an act beyond mere preparation for offense Traditionally, used the "proximity test" - which requires that the act be "dangerously close" to successful completion of the crime; much more substantial than the overt act needed for conspiracy (which can be very small, like mere preparation) Today, most courts and MPC use substantial step test - requires that the act or omission constitute a "substantial step in a course of conduct planned to culminate in the commission of the crime" that strongly corroborates the actor's criminal purpose Much more substantial than overt act needed for conspiracy

Question 29

Crim Law Under traditional view, is abandonment a defense to "attempt"?

Answer 29

Traditionally, no, abandonment is not a defense - if defendant had intent and committed an overt act, the defendant is guilty of attempt even if they changed their mind and abandoned the plan before the intended crime was completed But modern courts say yes, a defense if the abandonment is fully voluntary and complete

Question 30

Crim Law Is legal impossibility a defense to "attempt"?

Answer 30

It is rare, but if the defendant, having completed all acts that they had intended, would have committed no crime, they cannot be guilty of an attempt to do the same if they fail to complete all intended acts You can't be found guilty of attempting a "crime" that isn't actually a crime

Question 31

Crim Law Is factual impossibility a defense to "attempt"?

Answer 31

No, factual impossibility is not a defense When the substantive crime is incapable of being completed due to some physical or factual condition, that's not a defense

Question 32

Crim Law If someone is charged only with a completed crime, can they be found guilty of the attempted crime?

Answer 32

Even if you are charged with only the completed crime, if the jury doesn't get there, they can charge you with the attempted crime, even though that wasn't technically charged. But you can only be found guilty of either the completed crime OR the attempt.

Question 33

Crim Law If you are charged only with an attempted crime, can you then be convicted of the full crime?

Answer 33

No, if you're charged with only attempt, the jury can not convict you of the completed crime. Can't go more extreme. If you are charged only with attempt, that's where it stays. Unlike if you're charged with the full crime, then you can be dropped down and be found guilty of attempt.

Question 34

Crim Law What is the general definition of murder?

Answer 34

Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought Will default be second degree murder Malice aforethought exists if there are no facts reducing the killing to voluntary manslaughter or excusing it (defense), and it was committed with one of the following states of mind: - Intent to kill - Intent to inflict great bodily injury - Reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life - Intent to commit a felony (FM) Intentional use of a deadly weapon authorizes a permissive inference of intent to kill

Question 35

Crim Law For murder, when does malice aforethought exist?

Answer 35

Malice aforethought exists if there are no facts reducing the killing to voluntary manslaughter or excusing it (defense), and it was committed with one of the following states of mind: - Intent to kill - Intent to inflict great bodily injury - Reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life - Intent to commit a felony (FM) Intentional use of a deadly weapon authorizes a permissive inference of intent to kill

Question 36

Crim Law What is the default degree for murder?

Answer 36

Second degree - then things can bump it up or down

Question 37

Crim Law What is first degree murder?

Answer 37

A murder will be second degree murder unless something pushes it up to first degree If defendant made decision to kill in a cool and dispassionate manner, and actually reflected on the idea of killing, even if only for a very brief period, it's first degree murder Must have acted with intent or knowledge that their conduct would cause death May be negated by voluntary intoxication defense because of specific intent

Question 38

Crim Law For first degree murder, what is the intent element?

Answer 38

Must have had the intent or knowledge that their conduct would cause death

Question 39

Crim Law Can first degree murder be negated by voluntary intoxication defense?

Answer 39

Yes, first degree murder can be negated by voluntary intoxication because of specific intent (intent to kill)

Question 40

Crim Law What is a general intent crime?

Answer 40

The prosecution need only prove that the defendant intended to do the act in question Awareness of acting in proscribed manner (as opposed to specific intent crime where there is an intent to engage in proscribed conduct)

Question 41

Crim Law What is a specific intent crime?

Answer 41

The prosecution needs to prove that the defendant intends to bring about a specific consequence through his actions or that he perform the action with a wrongful purpose Common law standard Intent to engage in the proscribed conduct (vs general intent which is just an awareness of acting in proscribed manner)

Question 42

Crim Law What degree does felony murder usually count as?

Answer 42

Felony murder for the BARRK felonies counts as first degree murder But if it's another felony, it's usually second degree; so if statute says "any felony," it's second degree

Question 43

Crim Law What is felony murder?

Answer 43

Felony murder is a killing committed during the commission of an enumerated felony (BARRK) Any death caused in the commission of, or in an attempt to commit, a felony is murder Malice is implied from the intent to commit the underlying felony BARRK felonies for felony murder at CL: - Burglary - Arson - Rape - Robbery - Kidnapping Death must have been a foreseeable result of the felony

Question 44

Crim Law What is second degree murder?

Answer 44

The default for murder. Usually classified as a depraved heart killing. A killing done with a reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life. Any murder that isn't first degree or a lesser degree.

Question 45

Crim Law What are the enumerated felonies?

Answer 45

Burglary, arson, rape, robbery, kidnapping

Question 46

Crim Law How do defenses to felonies interact with defenses to felony murder?

Answer 46

In general, a defense that negates an element of the underlying offense will also be a defense to felony murder

Question 47

Crim Law In felony murder, can the felony be a killing?

Answer 47

No, the felony must be distinct from the killing itself Usually will be BARRK, but can be other felonies too

Question 48

Crim Law Does death need to be foreseeable for felony murder?

Answer 48

Yes, death needs to be a foreseeable result of the felony

Question 49

Crim Law In felony murder, what is the liability for deaths of co-felons?

Answer 49

In most jurisdictions, the defendant is not liable for felony murder when a co-felon is killed as a result of resistance from the felony victim or the police So co-felon death does not equal felony murder

Question 50

Crim Law For felony murder, what is the proximate cause theory?

Answer 50

More common theory - felons are liable for the deaths of innocent victims caused by someone other than a co-felon So if a police officer killed a bystander, the felon would be liable

Question 51

Crim Law For felony murder, what are the two main theories?

Answer 51

Proximate cause theory and agency theory

Question 52

Crim Law For felony murder, what is the agency theory?

Answer 52

Alternate theory - the killing must be committed by a felon or their "agent" with limited exceptions in other cases where the victim was used as a shield or otherwise forced by the felon to occupy a dangerous place So if a police officer killed a bystander, the felon would not be liable because it wasn't an accomplice or himself that killed the bystander

Question 53

Crim Law What is voluntary manslaughter?

Answer 53

A killing that would be murder but for the existence of adequate provocation Provocation is adequate only if: - It was provocation that would arouse sudden and intense passion in the mind of an ordinary person (ex: exposure to threat of deadly force, finding spouse in bed with another man, being victim of serious battery) - Defendant was in fact provoked and lost control - Wasn't sufficient time between provocation and killing for passions of reasonable person to cool; AND - Defendant in fact did not cool off between provocation and the killing Some states recognize "imperfect self-defense" which can drop a murder down to voluntary manslaughter - Where even though defendant was at fault in starting the altercation, the other person raises it to a level where now the defendant needs to use deadly self-defense to protect themselves - Or the defendant unreasonably but honestly believed in the necessity of responding with deadly force (so they don't technically qualify for actual self-defense)

Question 54

Crim Law What counts as adequate provocation for voluntary manslaughter?

Answer 54

Would arouse sudden and intense passion in mind of ordinary person; in fact was provoked and lost control; no cooling off time; and defendant in fact did not cool off Provocation is adequate only if: - It was provocation that would arouse sudden and intense passion in the mind of an ordinary person (ex: exposure to threat of deadly force, finding spouse in bed with another man, being victim of serious battery) - Defendant was in fact provoked and lost control - Wasn't sufficient time between provocation and killing for passions of reasonable person to cool; AND - Defendant in fact did not cool off between provocation and the killing

Question 55

Crim Law What is imperfect self-defense?

Answer 55

In the states that allow it, when a killing gets dropped down to voluntary manslaughter for doing self-defense in an imperfect way Could be that defendant started a small fight, victim escalates it to a huge fight, so then defendant needs to respond with self-defense that results in death - not really self-defense because defendant started it, but because the victim elevated it to such a serious place, he does get a little defense by dropping it to VM Or when the defendant unreasonably but honestly believed in the necessity of responding with deadly force - so again, don't qualify for actual self-defense because there was actually no need for it, but if the defendant honestly but unreasonably believed it, he gets imperfect self-defense and can get VM

Question 56

Crim Law What is involuntary manslaughter?

Answer 56

A killing is involuntary manslaughter if it was committed with criminal negligence, or in some states, a killing during the commission of an unlawful (misdemeanor or felony not included in felony murder rule) Under MPC, a killing could be involuntary manslaughter if it was committed with criminal recklessness Abandoned or malignant heart murder at CL involves a high risk of death (second degree murder) while involuntary manslaughter based on recklessness requires only a substantial risk

Question 57

Crim Law For murder, what must the causation be?

Answer 57

The defendant must be both the cause in fact and the proximate cause of the victim's death Cause in fact: Defendant's conduct is the cause in fact of the result if the result would not have occurred but for the defendant's conduct Proximate cause: defendant's conduct is the proximate cause of the result if the result is a natural and probable consequence of the conduct, even if the defendant did not anticipate the precise manner in which the result occurred Superseding factors break the chain of proximate cause (a third party's negligent medical care and the victim's refusal of medical treatment for religious reason are both foreseeable risks, so the defendant would still be liable)

Question 58

Crim Law With murder, what is proximate cause?

Answer 58

Proximate cause: defendant's conduct is the proximate cause of the result if the result is a natural and probable consequence of the conduct, even if the defendant did not anticipate the precise manner in which the result occurred Superseding factors break the chain of proximate cause (a third party's negligent medical care and the victim's refusal of medical treatment for religious reason are both foreseeable risks, so the defendant would still be liable)

Question 59

Crim Law Does a third party's negligent medical care break the chain of causation in murder?

Answer 59

No, even if a doctor is medically negligent in the care of a victim that the defendant hurt, and the victim dies, that's foreseeable and the defendant's act is still the proximate cause - doesn't break chain of causation

Question 60

Crim Law Does a victim's refusal of medical treatment for religious reasons break the chain of causation for murder?

Answer 60

No, it is foreseeable that a victim would refuse medical treatment for religious reasons so defendant is still on the hook

Question 61

Crim Law What is a battery?

Answer 61

A battery is an unlawful application of force to another person resulting in either bodily injury or an offensive touching Can be, but need not be, intentional (unlike torts where it needs to be intentional), and force need not be applied directly (like a dog attack) This is a general intent crime Some jurisdictions recognize consent as a defense Aggravated battery: (1) battery with a deadly weapon (2) battery resulting in serious bodily harm (3) battery of a child, woman, or police officer

Question 62

Crim Law Does battery need to be intentional?

Answer 62

No, doesn't have to be intentional like in torts. Can be an unintentional touching that still results in bodily injury or offensive touching.

Question 63

Crim Law Is battery a general intent or specific intent crime?

Answer 63

General intent

Question 64

Crim Law Is consent a defense to battery?

Answer 64

In some jurisdictions, yes, consent is a defense to battery

Question 65

Crim Law What is aggravated battery?

Answer 65

Aggravated battery: (1) battery with a deadly weapon; (2) battery resulting in serious bodily harm; and (3) battery of a child, woman, or police officer

Question 66

Crim Law What is assault?

Answer 66

Assault is either: (1) an attempt to commit a battery (specific intent crime) OR (2) the intentional creation - other than by mere words - of a reasonable apprehension of imminent bodily harm in the mind of the victim If there has been an actual touching, it can only be battery, not assault Aggravated assault: is an assault plus one of the following: (1) the use of a deadly or dangerous weapon; or (2) with the intent to rape, maim, or murder

Question 67

Crim Law What is aggravated assault?

Answer 67

Aggravated assault is an assault plus one of the following: (1) the use of a deadly or dangerous weapon; OR (2) with the intent to rape, maim, or murder

Question 68

Crim Law What is false imprisonment?

Answer 68

False imprisonment consists of the unlawful confinement of a person without the person's valid consent; and that confinement must substantially interfere with the person's liberty If alternative routes are available to a person, it is not confinement to just prevent a person from going where they want to go If there is "consent," it is invalidated by coercion, threats, deception, or incapacity due to mental illness, substantial cognitive impairment, or youth

Question 69

Crim Law For false imprisonment, does time of imprisonment matter?

Answer 69

No, could be for just seconds, but if that person is deprived from leaving, there is false imprisonment

Question 70

Crim Law For false imprisonment, does it matter if the person knows they are prohibited from leaving or not?

Answer 70

They need to know they are being "imprisoned." So if they are asleep, someone locks them in a room, they stay asleep or wake up but never try to leave, and then the person unlocks the door - no false imprisonment happened because the person was unaware they were being imprisoned

Question 71

Crim Law For false imprisonment, is consent a defense?

Answer 71

Yes, consent is a defense but it can be invalidated by coercion, threats, deception, incapacity due to mental illness, substantial cognitive impairment, or youth

Question 72

Crim Law What is kidnapping?

Answer 72

Kidnapping is the unlawful confinement of a person that involves either (1) some movement of the victim, or (2) concealment of the victim in a "secret" place Aggravated kidnapping includes kidnapping for ransom, for the purpose of committing other crimes, for offensive purposes, and child stealing

Question 73

Crim Law What is aggravated kidnapping?

Answer 73

Aggravated kidnapping includes kidnapping for ransom, for the purpose of committing other crimes, for offensive purposes, and child stealing

Question 74

Crim Law What is rape?

Answer 74

Unlawful carnal knowledge of a woman by a man, not her husband, without her effective consent Slightest penetration is sufficient Under CL and MPC, husband can't rape his wife, but most states have done away with this Lack of effective consent exists where: - Intercourse is accomplished by actual force - Intercourse is accomplished by threats of great and immediate bodily harm - The victim is incapable of consenting due to unconsciousness, intoxication, or mental condition; OR - The victim is fraudulently caused to believe that the act is not intercourse Note that consent due to other types of fraud (for ex: pretending to be your spouse, or saying you'll get married) IS effective and fine

Question 75

Crim Law For rape, what consitutes lack of effective consent?

Answer 75

Lac of effective consent exists where: - Intercourse is accomplished by actual force - Intercourse is accomplished by threats of great and immediate bodily harm - The victim is incapable of consenting due to unconsciousness, intoxication, or mental condition; OR - The victim is fraudulently caused to believe that the act is not intercourse Note that consent due to other types of fraud is effective and fine (can lie and say you're their spouse, or you'll get married)

Question 76

Crim Law What is statutory rape?

Answer 76

Statutory rape is the carnal knowledge of a person under the age of consent Strict liability crime - not necessary to show lack of consent Mistake as to age is generally not a defense and I should say that on exam But if no alternative answer, a reasonable mistake as to age will prevent conviction if the defendant reasonably belived the victim was old enough to give an effective consent

Question 77

Crim Law Do you have to show consent for a conviction for statutory rape?

Answer 77

No, this is a strict liability crime - you do not have to show consent to have a conviction. You just have to show that an older person had sex with a minor. That's it.

Question 78

Crim Law Is mistake as to age a defense for statutory rape?

Answer 78

Generally NO - and should go with that on exam. Generally, it does not matter even if a minor told an adult that she was 20 and the adult fully believed that. Doesn't matter. He was old, she was young, that's enough. But sometimes they don't give you that as an option so then a reasonable mistake as to age will prevent conviction if the defendant reasonably believed the victim was old enough to give an effective consent

Question 79

Crim Law What is larceny?

Answer 79

A taking and carrying away of tangible personal property of another with possession by trespass with intent to permanently deprive that person of their interest in the property Slightest movement of the property is enough Low level employees only have custody of an employer's property and so are guilty of larceny for taking it Intent to permanently deprive is at the time of the taking Insufficient intent: where the defendant believes the property is theirs or they intend to only borrow the property, or keep it until repayment of debt Larceny can be committed with lost or mislaid property that has been delivered by mistake, but not abandoned property Continuing trespass: if the defendant wrongfully takes property without the intent to permanently deprive but then later decides to keep the property, the defendant is guilty of larceny when they decide to keep it But if the initial taking was not wrongful and later decides to keep it, it's not larceny

Question 80

Crim Law Can a low level employee be guilty of larceny for taking employer's property?

Answer 80

Yes, low level employees only have custody of an employer's property and so are guilty of larceny for taking it

Question 81

Crim Law For larceny, what is the intent element?

Answer 81

The intent to permanently deprive is at the time of the taking If the defendant intends to just borrow the material when they take it, that's not intent - but can later turn into continuing trespass And if they are mistaken about ownership of the item, like they think it's theirs so they take it, that is insufficient intent

Question 82

Crim Law What is insufficient intent for larceny?

Answer 82

Where the defendant believes the property is theirs or they intend to only borrow the property, or keep it until repayment of a debt

Question 83

Crim Law For larceny, what is continuing trespass?

Answer 83

If the defendant wrongfully takes property without the intent to permanently deprive but then later decides to keep the property, the defendant is guilty of larceny when they decide to keep it But if the initial taking was not wrongful (for ex, a mistake) and later decides to keep it, it's not larceny

Question 84

Crim Law What is embezzlement?

Answer 84

The fraudulent conversion of personal property of another by a person in lawful possession of that property Dealing with the property in a manner inconsistent with the arrangement by which defendant has possession Defendant must intend to defraud; doesn't have to take away, just the possession of the property is required If defendant intends to restore the exact property taken, it is not embezzlement But if you're restoring it with something substantially similar, it's embezzlement (taking money and giving back the same amount of money but not the legit money you took, that's wrongful)

Question 85

Crim Law With embezzlement, what if you intend to replace the property?

Answer 85

If you intend to restore the exact property taken, like literally the legit actual property, then that is not embezzlement. But if you intend to restore it with something substantially similar, that is embezzlement. So if you take $5 out of the cash register to show someone you have the money, but then replace that exact same $5 bill, that's not embezzelement. But if you take the $5, show it off, and then replace it with another $5, or a mix of bills, that's only substantially similar and that is embezzlement.

Question 86

Crim Law What is false pretenses?

Answer 86

False pretenses is obtaining title to personal property of another by an intentional false statement of a past or existing fact with intent to defraud the other Title to property includes money Victim must actually be deceived by, or act in reliance on, the misrepresentation, and this must be a major factor of the victim passing title to the defendant At common law, the defendant's misrepresentation must have related to a past or present fact, and false promises to do something in the future, even without the present intent to perform, were not sufficient Modern view: any false representation suffices, including a promse to perform in the future Depending on the statute, defendant must either have known the statement to be false or have intended that hte victim rely on the misrepresentation Most states will find that the defendant "knew" of the falsity of any statements, when, after being put on notice of the high probabilitiy of the statement's falsity, they deliverately avoided learning the truth

Question 87

Crim Law With false pretenses, what must happen with the victim for there to be a conviction?

Answer 87

The victim must actually be deceived by, or act in reliance on, the misrepresentation, and this must be a major factor of the victim passing title to the defendant

Question 88

Crim Law With false pretenses, what kind of misrepresentation must have been made?

Answer 88

Common law: defendant's misrepresentation must have related to a past or present fact, and false promises to do something in the future, even without the present intent to perform, were not sufficient Modern view: any false representation suffices, including a false promise to perform in the future

Question 89

Crim Law With false pretenses, does the defendant need to know his statements are false?

Answer 89

Yes, depending on the statute, defendant must either have known the statement to be false or have intended that the victim rely on the misrepresentation Most states will find that the defendant "knew" of the falsity of any statements when, after being put on notice of the high probability of the statement's falsity, they deliberately avoided learning the truth

Question 90

Crim Law What is robbery?

Answer 90

A taking of personal property of another from the other person's person or presence (including anywhere in their vicinity) by force or threats of immediate death or physical injury to the victim, a family member, or some person in the victim's presence with the intent to permanently deprive them of it If victim gives up property because they felt sorry for the defendant or wanted him to go away, there is no robbery and only attempted robbery - the victim needs to be threatened

Question 91

Crim Law What is extortion?

Answer 91

Traditionally, it was the corrupt collection of an unlawful fee by an officer under color of office. But modern view is that extortion (blackmail) often consists of obtaining proeprty by means of threats to do harm or to expose information Under some statutes, crime is complete when threats are made with the intent to obtain property - meaning, the property need not be obtained

Question 92

Crim Law What is receipt of stolen property?

Answer 92

Receiving possession and control of "stolen" personal property known to have been obtained in a manner constituting a criminal offense by another person with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of their interest in it

Question 93

Crim Law What are the offenses that are sometimes grouped into the "theft" crimes?

Answer 93

Larceny, embezzlement, false pretenses, robbery, extortion, and receipt of stolen property

Question 94

Crim Law What is forgery?

Answer 94

Making or altering a writing with apparent legal significance so that it is false; that is, representing that it is something that it is not, not merely containing a misrepresentation, with intent to defraud So like a fake receipt, not an inaccurate receipt If defendant fraudulently causes a third person to sign a document that the third person doesn't realize they're signing, forgery has been committed But if third person realizes they are signing the document, forgery hasn't been committed even if the third person was induced by fraud to sign it Uttering a forged instrument consists of: (1) offering as genuine; (2) an instrument that may be the subject of forgery and is false; (3) with intent to defraud

Question 95

Crim Law If defendant gets a third party to sign something, can that be forgery?

Answer 95

Yes, if defendant fraudulently causes a third person to sign a document that the third person doesn't realize they're signing, forgery has been committed But if third person realizes they are signing the document, forgery hasn't been committed even if the third person was induced by fraud to sign it

Question 96

Crim Law What does uttering a forged instrument consist of?

Answer 96

Uttering a forged instrument consists of: (1) offering as genuine; (2) an instrument that may be the subject of forgery and is false; (3) with intent to defraud

Question 97

Crim Law What is burglary?

Answer 97

A breaking and entry of a dwelling of another at nighttime with the intent to commit a felony therein Breaking: can be actual or constructive Actual breaking: involving some force, however slight; a person coming uninvited through a wide open door or window is not an actual breaking; but if they push open an interior door into another room, then there's a breaking Constructive breaking: by fraud or threat Intent to commit the felony must exist at the time of the breaking and entering

Question 98

Crim Law What constitutes a breaking for burglary purposes?

Answer 98

Breaking: can be actual or constructive Actual breaking: involving some force, however slight; a person coming uninvited through a wide open door or window is not an actual breaking; but if they push open an interior door into another room, then there's a breaking Constructive breaking: by fraud or threat

Question 99

Crim Law What is the intent element of burglary?

Answer 99

Intent to commit a felony therein Intent to commit the felony must exist at the time of the breaking and entering

Question 100

Crim Law What is arson?

Answer 100

Arson is the malicious burning of the dwelling of another Malicious: intentional or with reckless disregard of an obvious risk Burning: requiring some damage to the structure caused by fire Damage: destruction isn't required; mere blackening by smoke or discoloration by heat is NOT sufficient but mere charring is sufficient No specific intent required; acting with a reckless disregard of an obvious risk that the structure would burn will suffice At common law, needs to not be your own house, but modern statutes often allow it to be your house

Question 101

Crim Law What is the necessary mindset for arson?

Answer 101

Needs to be malicious - which means intentional or reckless disregard of an obvious risk No specific intent required Acting with a reckless disregard of an obvious risk that the structure would burn will suffice

Question 102

Crim Law What damage is required for arson?

Answer 102

Destruction isn't required Mere blackening by smoke or discoloration by heat is NOT sufficient But mere charring IS sufficient

Question 103

Crim Law What are the specific intent crimes?

Answer 103

Students Can Always Fake A Laugh Even For Ridiculous Bar Facts Solicitation: intent to have the person solicited commit the crime Conspiracy: intent to have the crime completed Attempt: intent to complete the crime (even when the completed crime is not, attempt is always a specific intent crime) First degree premeditated murder: premeditated intent to kill Assault: intent to commit a battery Larceny: intent to permanently deprive the other of their interest in the property taken Embezzlement: intent to defraud False pretenses: intent to defraud Robbery: intent to permanently deprive the other of their interest in the property taken Burglary: intent to commit a felony in the dwelling Forgery: intent to defraud For specific intent crimes, defenses like voluntary intoxication and unreasonable mistake of fact are available

Question 104

Crim Law What defenses are available for specific intent crimes?

Answer 104

Voluntary intoxication and unreasonable mistake of fact

Question 105

Crim Law What are the malice crimes?

Answer 105

Common law murder and arson Intent: requires a reckless disregard of an obvious or high risk that the particular harmful result will occur Reckless disregard of a known risk

Question 106

Crim Law What are the general intent crimes?

Answer 106

The rest - battery, rape, kidnapping, false imprisonment, etc. Means defendant has an awareness of all factors constituting the crime The defendant must be aware that they are acting in the proscribed way and that any required attendant circumstances exist Doesn't have to be certain that all the circumstances exist Sufficient that they are aware of a high likelihood that they will occur Jury may infer the required general intent merely from doing the act

Question 107

Crim Law What does it mean to be a strict liability crime?

Answer 107

Offense that doesn't require awareness of all the factors constituting the crime Defendant can be found guilty from the mere fact that they committed the act Defenses that negate state of mind, like mistake of fact or intoxication, are not available Ex: Statutory rape, selling liquor to minors, bigamy

Question 108

Crim Law Under MPC, what does purposely mean?

Answer 108

Acts purposely when their conscious object is to engage in certain conduct or cause a certain result

Question 109

Crim Law Under MPC, what is knowingly?

Answer 109

Acts knowingly with respect to the nature of their conduct when they are aware that their conduct is of a particular nature or that certain circumstances exist Person is deemed to be aware of these circumstances when they are aware of a high probability that they exist and deliberately avoid learning the truth Person acts knowingly with respect to the result of their conduct when they know that their conduct will necessarily or very likely cause a particular result

Question 110

Crim Law Under MPC, what is recklessly?

Answer 110

Acts recklessly when they consciously disregard a substantial and unjustifiable risk that circumstances exist or a prohibited result will follow This disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in that situation

Question 111

Crim Law Under MPC, what is negligently?

Answer 111

Acts negligently when they fail to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk where such a failure is a substantial deviation from the standard of care Objective standard Must have taken a very unreasonable risk

Question 112

Crim Law In order to be convicted of the substantive crime, accomplice must have:

Answer 112

(1) the intent to assist the principal in the commission of a crime; and (2) the intent that the principal commit the substantive offense

Question 113

Crim Law When mens rea is recklessness or negligence, most jurisdictions hold that the intent element is satisfied if accomplice:

Answer 113

(1) intended to facilitate the commission of the crime; and (2) acted with recklessness or negligence

Question 114

Crim Law, With accomplices, what must a person do to successfully withdraw from the crime and have that as a defense?

Answer 114

- Withdrawal must occur before the crime becomes unstoppable - If the person encouraged the crime, the person must repudiate the encouragement - If the person aided by giving assistance, the person must do everything possible to attempt to neutralize the assistance (for ex: by attempting to retrieve the materials provided) - Notifying the police or taking other action is also sufficient - Mere withdrawal without taking additional action is insufficient

Question 115

Crim Law What are the four insanity tests?

Answer 115

M'Naghten Rule: a defendant is entitled to acquittal if: (1) a disease of the mind (2) caused a defect of reason (3) such that the defendant lacked the ability at the time of their actions to either know the wrongfulness of their actions or understand the nature and quality of their actions Irresistible impulse test: a defendant is entitled to acquittal only if, because of a mental illness, they were unable to control their actions or conform their conduct to the law Durham (New Hampshire) test: a defendant is entitled to acquittal if the crime was the product of their mental illness (the crime wouldn't have been committed but for their disease); followed only in NH ALI or MPC Test: a defendant is entitled to acquittal if they had a mental disease or defect, and, as a result, they lacked the substantial capacity to either: (1) appreciate the criminality of their conduct; or (2) conform their conduct to the requirements of law

Question 116

Crim Law What is the M'Naghten Rule?

Answer 116

A defendant is entitled to acquittal if: (1) a disease of the mind (2) caused a defect of reason (3) such that the defendant lacked the ability at the time of their actions to either know the wrongfulness of their actions or understand the nature and quality of their actions In short: defendant does not know right from wrong or does not understand his actions

Question 117

Crim Law What is the irresistible impulse test?

Answer 117

A defendant is entitled to acquittal only if, because of a mental illness, they were unable to control their actions or conform their conduct to the law In short: an impulse that the defendant cannot resist

Question 118

Crim Law What is the Durham (New Hampshire) test?

Answer 118

A defendant is entitled to acquittal if the crime was the product of their mental illness (the crime wouldn't have been committed but for their disease); followed only in NH In short: but for the mental illness, defendant would not have done the act

Question 119

Crim Law What is the ALI or MPC test?

Answer 119

A defendant is entitled to acquittal if they had a mental disease or defect, and, as a result, they lacked the substantial capacity to either: (1) appreciate the criminality of their conduct; or (2) conform their conduct to the requirements of law In short: combination of M'Naghten and irresistible impulse

Question 120

Crim Law What is the procedure for asserting an insanity defense?

Answer 120

Generally, defendant has the burden to prove their insanity by a preponderance of the evidence Some states and MPC require prosecution to prove the defendant was sane beyond a reasonable doubt Federal courts require the defendant to prove insanity by clear and convincing evidence

Question 121

Crim Law What is the voluntary intoxication defense?

Answer 121

Voluntary intoxication is voluntary if it is the result of the intentional taking without duress of a substance known to be intoxicating May be offered as defense only if the crime requires purpose (intent) or knowledge, and the intoxication prevented the defendant from formulating the purpose or obtaining the knowledge - specific intent crimes only For crimes requiring recklessness, a person who would have been aware of the risk had he not been intoxicated acts recklessly with regard to the risk Defense is not available if defendant purposely becomes intoxicated in order to establish the defense or work up the courage for the act

Question 122

Crim Law What is the involuntary intoxication defense?

Answer 122

Involuntary only if it results from the taking of an intoxicating substance without knowledge of its nature, under direct duress imposed by another, or pursuant to medical advice while unaware of the substance's intoxicating effect May be treated as a mental illness and the defendant is entitled to acquittal if they meet the juriisdiction's insanity test Can be a defense to all crimes, not just specific intent Treat involuntary intoxication like insanity (use test applicable to jurisdiction)

Question 123

Crim Law What is the liability for children and crimes?

Answer 123

At common law: - No liability for children under age 7 - For children between 7-14, rebuttable presumption that the child was unable to understand the wrongfulness of their acts - Children 14+ were treated as adults Modern view: - Often provide that no child can be convicted of a crime until a stated age is reached, usually 13 or 14 - However, can be found delinquent

Question 124

Crim Law Is threat of future harm sufficient for self-defense claim?

Answer 124

No, self-defense depends on the immediacy of the threat and threat of future harm is insufficient

Question 125

Crim Law For self-defense, nondeadly force is justified when:

Answer 125

It appears necessary to avoid imminent injury or to retain property

Question 126

Crim Law For self-defense, deadly force is justified when:

Answer 126

it is to prevent death or serious bodily injury Deadly force is permitted when victim is without fault, confronted with unlawful force, and rsbly believes he is threatened with imminent deadly force or great bodily harm

Question 127

Crim Law For self-defense, what is the general standard for nondeadly force?

Answer 127

Person without fault may use such force as the person reasonably believes is necessary to protect themselves from the imminent use of unlawful force upon themselves; no duty to retreat Justified where it appears necessary to avoid imminent injury or to retain property

Question 128

Crim Law For self-defense, what is the general standard for deadly force?

Answer 128

May use if the person is: (1) without fault; (2) confronted with "unlawful force"; AND (3) reasonably believes that they are threatened with imminent death or great bodily harm If defendant kills in self-defense but not all three are met, some states use imperfect self-defense but others use manslaughter Generally no duty to retreat before using deadly force Minority view requires retreat before using deadly force if the victim can safely do so, unless: - attack occurs in victim's own home - attack occurs while the victim is making a lawful arrest; OR - assailant is in the process of robbing the victim

Question 129

Crim Law In self-defense, is there a duty to retreat?

Answer 129

Generally no duty to retreat with either nondeadly or deadly force Minority view requires retreat before using deadly force if the victim can safely do so, unless: - attack occurs in victim's own home - attack occurs while the victim is making a lawful arrest; OR - assailant is in the process of robbing the victim

Question 130

Crim Law What is the minority view for retreating in self-defense?

Answer 130

Minority view requires retreat before using deadly force if the victim can safely do so, unless: - attack occurs in victim's own home - attack occurs while the victim is making a lawful arrest; OR - assailant is in the process of robbing the victim No duty to retreat with nondeadly force

Question 131

Crim Law Does the aggressor have the right to use self-defense?

Answer 131

If one is the aggressor in the confrontation, they may use force in defense of themselves only if: - They effectively withdraw from the confrontation and communicate to the other their desire to do so, OR - The victim of the initial aggression suddenly escalates the minor fight into a deadly altercation and the initial aggressor has no chance to withdraw

Question 132

Crim Law Does one have the right to use force in the defense of others? (self-defense)

Answer 132

Defendant has the right to defend others if they reasonably believe that the person assisted has the legal right to use force in their own defense All that's necessary is the reasonable appearance of the right to use force

Question 133

Crim Law Does one have the right to use force in the defense of a dwelling? (self-defense)

Answer 133

Person may use nondeadly force in a defense of their dwelling when, and to the extent that, they reasonably believe that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate another's unlawful entry into or attack upon their dwelling Deadly force may be used only to prevent a violent entry and when the person reasonably believes that the use of force is necessary to prevent a personal attack on themselves or another in the dwelling, or to prevent an entry to commit a felony in the dwelling

Question 134

Crim Law When can deadly force be used in the defense of a dwelling? (self-defense)

Answer 134

Deadly force may be used only to prevent a violent entry and when the person reasonably believes that the use of force is necessary to prevent a personal attack on themselves or another in the dwelling, or to prevent an entry to commit a felony in the dwelling

Question 135

Crim Law What force can be used in defense of property other than your dwelling? (self-defense)

Answer 135

Deadly force may never be used in defense of property Reasonable, nondeadly force may be used to defend property in one's possession from what they reasonably believe is an imminent, unlawful intereference Force may not be used if a request to desist or refrain from the activity would suffice

Question 136

Crim Law What force can be used to regain possession (self-defense)?

Answer 136

A person may use force to regain possession of property that they reasonably believe was wrongfully taken only if they are in immediate pursuit of the taker And always nondeadly force because deadly force is never allowed for possessions/property

Question 137

Crim Law What force can be used in crime prevention (self-defense)?

Answer 137

Nondeadly force may be used to extent that it reasonably appears necessary to prevent a felony or serious breach of the peace Deadly force may be used only if it appears reasonably necessary to terminate or prevent a dangerous felony involving risk to human life

Question 138

Crim Law What force can be used to effectuate arrests? (self-defense)

Answer 138

Police officers: - Nondeadly force may be used if reasonably encessary to effectuate an arrest - Deadly force is reasonable only if it is necessary to prevent a felon's escape and the officer reasonably believes that the felon threatens death or serious bodily harm - Bystander summoned by officer to assist them in making an arrest has the same authority to use force as the officer, and the bystander's good faith assistance is justified even if it turns out that the officer was exceeding their authority Private Persons: Has same right to arrest as a police officer with the following exceptions: - Has privilege to use nondeadly force to make an arrest if a crime was in fact committed and the private person has reasonable grounds to believe the person arrested has in fact committed the crime - May use deadly force only if the person harmed was actually guilty of the offense for which the arrest was made

Question 139

What force can police officers use to effectuate arrests? (self-defense)

Answer 139

Nondeadly force may be used if reasonably encessary to effectuate an arrest Deadly force is reasonable only if it is necessary to prevent a felon's escape and the officer reasonably believes that the felon threatens death or serious bodily harm Bystander summoned by officer to assist them in making an arrest has the same authority to use force as the officer, and the bystander's good faith assistance is justified even if it turns out that the officer was exceeding their authority

Question 140

Crim Law What force can be used in resisting arrest (self-defense)?

Answer 140

Majority: nondeadly force may be used to resist an improper arrest even if the defendant knows it's an officer making the arrest Minority and MPC: no force allowed in resisting a known police office Deadly force may be used only if the defendant doesn't know it's a police officer arresting them

Question 141

Crim Law What is the duress defense?

Answer 141

When the defendant reasonably believed that another person would imminently inflict death or great bodily harm upon them, a member of their family, or a third person if the defendant did not commit the crime Defense to crimes but not murder Traditionally, the person threatening to harm someone's property is insufficient to establish duress defense However, a number of states and MPC do allow for threats of property to give rise to a duress defense, assuming the value of the property outweighs the harm done to society by commission of the crime

Question 142

Crim Law Does duress defense apply to threats to harm property (as opposed to threatening to harm a person)?

Answer 142

Traditionally, person threatening to harm someone's property is insufficient to establish duress defense However, a number of states and MPC do allow for threats of property to give rise to a duress defense, assuming the value of the property outweighs the harm done to society by commission of the crime

Question 143

Crim Law What is the necessity defense?

Answer 143

Defense to a crime when the person reasonably believed that commission of the crime was necessary to avoid an imminent and greater injury to society than that involved in the crime Test is objective - a good faith belief is not sufficient Under traditional common law, pressure producing the choice of evils had to come from natural forces But modern cases have abandoned this requirement Limitations: - Causing the death of another person to protect property is never justified - Not available if the defendant is at fault in creating the situation requiring that they choose between two evils

Question 144

Crim Law Is the necessity defense test objective or subjective?

Answer 144

Test is objective - a good faith belief is not sufficient

Question 145

Crim Law What are the limitations of the necessity defense?

Answer 145

Limitations: Causing the death of another person to protect property is never justified Not available if the defendant is at fault in creating the situation requiring that they choose between two evils

Question 146

Crim Law What is the mistake of ignorance of fact (mistake of fact) defense?

Answer 146

This defense is relevant to criminal liability only if it shows that the defendant lacked the state of mind required for the crime Irrelevant is the crime imposes "strict liability" If mistake is offered to "disprove" a specific intent, then the mistake need not be reasonable But if offered to disprove any other state of mind, it must have been a reasonable mistake or ignorance

Question 147

Crim Law When does the mistake of fact need to be reasonable to be allowed as a defense?

Answer 147

If mistake is offered to "disprove" a specific intent, then the mistake need not be reasonable But if offered to disprove any other state of mind, it must have been a reasonable mistake or ignorance

Question 148

Crim Law What is the mistake/ignorance of law defense?

Answer 148

Generally, it is not a defense that the defendant believed that their activity would not be a crime, even if that belief was reasonable and/or based on the advice of an attorney However, if the reliance on the attorney negates a necessary mental state element, such reliance can demonstrate that the government has not proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt Exceptions: Defendant has a defense if: (1) the statute proscribing their conduct was not published or made reasonably available prior to the conduct; (2) there was reasonable reliance on a statute or judicial decision; or (3) in some jurisdictions, there was a reasonable reliance on official interpretation or advice If the defendant's mistake or ignorance as to a collateral legal matter proves that hte defendant lacked the state of mind required for the crime, they are entitled to acquittal - Ignorance or mistake must involve the elements of the crime, not just the existence of a statute making the act criminal

Question 149

Crim Law What are the possible exceptions to mistake of law not being a defense?

Answer 149

If reliance on an attorney negates a necessary mental state element, such reliance can demonstrate that the government has not proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt General exceptions, where it could be a defense: Defendant has a defense if: (1) the statute proscribing their conduct was not published or made reasonably available prior to the conduct; (2) there was reasonable reliance on a statute or judicial decision; or (3) in some jurisdictions, there was a reasonable reliance on official interpretation or advice If the defendant's mistake or ignorance as to a collateral legal matter proves that hte defendant lacked the state of mind required for the crime, they are entitled to acquittal - Ignorance or mistake must involve the elements of the crime, not just the existence of a statute making the act criminal

Question 150

Crim Law What is the entrapment defense?

Answer 150

Entrapment occurs if the intent to commit the crime originated not with the defendant but with law enforcement officers Exists only if: (1) the criminal design originated with law enofrcement officers; AND (2) the defendant was not predisposed to commit the crime prior to contact by the government Merely providing the opportunity for a predisposed peson to commit a crime is not entrapment Person cannot be entrapped by a private citizen Under federal law, an entrapment defense cannot be based solely on the fact that a government agent provided an ingredient for commission of hte crime (for ex: ingredient for a drug), even if the material provided was contraband

Question 151

Crim Law Can a private person entrap someone?

Answer 151

No, a person can't be entrapped by a private citizen, only officers

Question 152

Crim Law For an entrapment defense, what elements must be met?

Answer 152

Entrapment defense exists only if: (1) the criminal design originated with law enofrcement officers; AND (2) the defendant was not predisposed to commit the crime prior to contact by the government

Question 153

Crim Law What is crime of perjury?

Answer 153

Perjury is the intentional taking of a false oath in regard to a material matter in a judicial proceeding

Question 154

Crim Law What is crime of subornation of perjury?

Answer 154

Subornation of perjury consists of procurin gor inducing another to commit perjury

Question 155

Crim Law What is crime of bribery?

Answer 155

At common law, bribery was the corrupt payment or receipt of anything of value for official action Modern, may be extended to nonpublic officials, and either the offering of a bribe or the taking of a bribe may constitute the crime

Question 156

Crim Law What is the crime of compounding a crime?

Answer 156

Consists of agreeing, for valuable consideration, not to prosecute another for a felony or to conceal the commission of a felony or the whereabouts of a felon Modern statutes - expands definition to refer to any crime, not just a felony

Question 157

Crim Law What is the crime of misprision of a felony?

Answer 157

At common law, misprision of a felony consisted of teh failure to disclose knowledge of the commission of a felony or to prevent the commission of a felony Modern statutes - misprision is no longer a crime - or if it remains a crime, it requires some affirmative action in aid of the felon

Question 158

What is larceny by trick?

Answer 158

Larceny where victim intended to give thief mere possession