crim law Flashcards

Question

attempt: mens rea

Answer 1

attempt to commit a crime

Answer 2

2 tests: Physical proximity: how close are you Dangerous proximity: how dangerously close are you: depends on how dangerous it is

Answer 3

closeness test: dangerous close and proximate close

Answer 4

substantial step test: have you taken substantial test to corroborate the criminal offense

Answer 5

common law: no abandonment modern jurisdiction: some allow abandonment to prompt deterrence: HAS TO BE COMPLETE AND VOLUNTARY RELINQUISH CRIME

Answer 6

unwanted touching of another human being: entry is not required

Answer 7

negligence or higher: greater or equal to negligence common law general: any state of mind will satisfy the men's rea for battery

Answer 8

Typically, something bad in the sense that you used a deadly or dangerous weapon, inflicted serious bodily injury, or battery upon a child or police

Answer 9

1. Attempted battery : You attempt to touch someone in an unwanted manner 2. Putting someone in reasonable fear and reasonable apprehension of an imminent batter : So it may not be intent to touch but intent to cause fear of battery

Answer 10

Specific intent crime: Actus reas 1 - Intent is that you intend to commit a battery and you attempted to commit a battery Actus reas 2 - You intended to put someone in reasonable fear of an imminent battery even if its not your intent to touch them

Answer 11

sexual intercourse: - penetration, by force, threat of force without consent, sexual intercourse by force or threat of force without consent Common law: - need force or threat of force

Answer 12

Negligence or higher: regarding element of consent :Reasonable mistake for consent, then there is no rape

Answer 13

Statutory rape actus reus - determined by states some is 14, 16, 18 mens rea: stautory rape - None since strict liability

Answer 14

resistance :Need resistance but not utmost resistance: depends on jurisdictions 2 kinds of consent :attitudinal: like men's rea : performative: actions RusK: no consent in this case: MAJORITY RULE 1. Intercorce 2. Force 3. w/o consent MTS: no consent in this case: TREND RULE 1. Intercorce 2. Force

Answer 15

unlawful killing of another human being

Answer 16

Unlawful killing with malice forethought 4 conditions: - Intent to kill - intent to inflict bodily injury - extreme recklessness to human life - felony murder

Answer 17

Not ordinary criminal recklessness: extreem recklessness MPC describes as extreme indifference to human life

Answer 18

actus reas: killing during a felony mens rea: is none: strict liability Killing: by anyone doesn't have to be by the perpetrator of the crime - Limited now to only the perpetrators and the accomplice During: not just during crime but getting there and leaving as well - Causation (to limit) - 1. but for: if not this but for - 2. proximate cause: closeness

Answer 19

Inherently dangerous: - Ex: Robbery, rape, burglary, felonious escape, arson, kidnapping Felony in the abstract is dangerous Merger doctrine: - Non-mergeable: Independent Ex: hitting someone with a gun would not be felony murder

Answer 20

Two kinds 1. Mens rea: premeditation and deliberation : Mean you planned and waited in advance 2. Felony murder :Death or life without parole Must set out in statutes before the felonies that would lead to felony murder Rape, robbery, arson, kidnapping

Answer 21

Every other murder that is not 1st-degree All intentional killings without premeditation and deliberation Felony murders with felonies not set up by the specific murders

Answer 22

voluntary: - Heat of passion - Sudden and intense reaction with no cooling off time: provocation good enough that you lose your temper and kill someone - Less than murder in grading and punishment Involuntary - Mens rea: killing negligently or recklessly - Fall below malicious mindset for killing - Analog killing: misdemeanor manslaughter - Commit a misdemeanor and there is a proximate cause between misdemeanor and death

Answer 23

Non deadly: use if you have a reasonable believe in necessity to use non deadly force for unlawful use Deadly forse: need to protect against imminent unlawful deadly force/serious bodily injury

Answer 24

non deadly: dont need to retreat deadly: - majority: don't necessarily need to retreat - minority: need to retreat: don't have to under certain circumstances - Castle doctrine: defend home -robbed or raped deadly force can be used

Answer 25

If they withdraw and the defender keeps going they switch roles If the defendant escalates to deadly force than the aggressor becomes the victim

Answer 26

Murder would be brought down to manslaughter - Ex: victi=m should retreat but choses not to and shots and kills aggressor: - Liable for manslaughter not murder

Answer 27

Can use as much force to defend third party (even deadly force) as they would use to defend themselves Some say they can only use the amount of force the third party could use

Answer 28

excuse defenses: dont justify but excuse conduct to say they arent culpable

Answer 29

Not a defense to strict liability crimes Only excuses specific intent crimes - If crimes need specific intent, then it is a defense otherwise, you can still be held for other crimes Murder - Defense to 1st-degree murder but not to 2nd-degree murder - No 1st degree since you cannot premeditate and form intent

Answer 30

choice of evils: justification defense: society wants you to commit a crime since it commits a lesser of two evils

Answer 31

Reasonable belief that there is a need to break the law to cause less harm to society Must derive from natural forces - Ex: running from a tornado and breaking into a store Cant use as a defense to homicides

Answer 32

Killing someone saves lives of a bunch of people Can NEVER take a life based on necessity defense - No clear answer

Answer 33

Excuse defense: well they are mitigating the circumstance even though you committed the crime

Answer 34

Reasonable belief you are under threat by another person of imminent threat or bodily harm - Can be a threat to family or someone close to you Did not bring about the harm

Answer 35

illustrating the claim that courts sometimes might use the device of “time-framing” to find or not find an actus reus or some other element of the offense

Answer 36

illustrating that seemingly affirmative acts are sometimes treated as failures to act, or omissions Case where two doctors removed feeding tubes and life support (with the consent of family) the patient died and the doctors are being sued for murder Ultimately not found liable They can’t be held liable unless they have a legal duty to act - If treatment is ineffective/the victim's family consents Pulling Plug (act) = manually withholding treatment (failure to act) -act = failure to act Cant hold the doctors liable

Answer 37

the Majority opinion uses the moral wrong doctrine; the Dissent advocates the legal wrong doctrine Upheld conviction even though he was mistaken on her age and it was reasonable for him to have made this mistake There is no mens rea in her age and that falls under strict liability: - Even though consent and possession are under knowledge age is not - Mens rea in those elements (Consent and Possession) he made a mistake since age is strict liability he would still be held It is moral wrong so the court disregards the mistake Age is strict liability because of the moral wrong doctrine

Answer 38

illustrating that what seems to be a failure to act, or omission, is sometimes treated as an affirmative act; also, the court advances the notion of a continuing act Actus rea came first, then mens rea After actus rea, there was some mens rea, so the overlap was satisfied Went on the officer's foot with the car's tire (unknowingly: actus rea), and when the officer told him to get off, he didn't (mens rea) - Argued it wasnt assault but an omission since he just didn't act, and that cant be an assault: didn't act in removing the car tire off the officer's foot

Answer 39

the force inherent in the act of sexual intercourse (intrinsic force) satisfies the force requirement for rape; also, the consent of the victim must be established by either affirmative words or conduct Unauthorized touching - Is battery so any non consentual intercourse is force: the states conseption Follows the courts definition Must show consent through affirmative words and actions

Answer 40

self-defense is assessed by whether the defendant’s conduct or beliefs were that of a reasonable person in the defendant’s “situation”

Answer 41

imminence requirement for self-defense

Answer 42

the burden of persuasion for a defense may constitutionally be allocated to the defendant if the defense does NOT directly and clearly negate an element of the offense charged

Answer 43

loss of liberty, loss of life, stigma

Answer 44

One is in response to punishment One is done without going through punishment: Rehabilitation with no punishment

Answer 45

1. the harm of the punishment must exceed the profit of the offense 2. Proportionality: greater offense = greater punishment 3. There must be increasingly severe punishment at each successive stage of a criminal course of conduct: ex more punish for murder than attempted murder

Answer 46

for a defendant to be prosecuted and punished the act has to be previously criminalized Ex post facto: cant retroactively punish

Answer 47

wrong in and of itself

Answer 48

wrong only because the legislature has said it is wrong

Answer 49

1. statue must not be too big 2. statue can not give police too much discretion 3. rule of strict construction: rule of lenity: statute is ambiguous statue will be resolved in favor of the defendant

Answer 50

willed bodily movement People v. Decina - While operating the vehicle he had a seizure and ran over 4 people who died - Can he be held liable? - Act to drive the car was voluntary so under the model penal code he could be held - Under Martin he involuntary had a seizure so since it wasn't all voluntary he cannot be held

Answer 51

Fraud as to the nature of the act that the victim is defrauded into committing

Answer 52

The victim is entire of the nature of the act they are engaging in or performing but have been decided as to the reason or motive or purpose for engaging in that act

Answer 53

1. Murder 2. Arson 3. Rape 4. Kidnapping 5: Burgelary 6: Felonious Escape

Answer 54

If the defendant committed an underlying felony for a different reason than the reason for committing the injury that caused the death, then it is independent and does not merge, so the defendant is liable for felony murder If defendant committed for the same reason as the underlying act to commit murder, than it does merge, and it is not independent so there can be no felony murder liability

Answer 55

1: Asses the elements of the felony 2: If the elements have any assultive aspect they are non independant felonies and they merge so no felony murder liability 3: if they have independant they to not merge so they have felony murder liability

crim law Flashcards

(79 cards)