Crim Law Flashcards

Question

# Inchoate Offenses What is a conspiracy? ## Footnote Traditional common law rule Modern law approach

Answer 1

An agreement between 2 or more persons *to pursue an UNALWFUL object* Intent (specific) to enter into agreement AND Intent (specific) by at least 2 persons to achieve objective of agreement | NO MERGER INTO SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSE ## Footnote Traditional common law rule - bilateral approach: must have at least 2 guilty minds (if 1 is faking = no conspiracy) Modern - unilateral approach: only requires 1 guilty mind

Answer 2

Overt act in furtherance of conspiracy (even act act of mere preparation) ## Footnote Just agreement itself

Answer 3

Conspiracy is completed upon the agreement + act Terminates upon completion of wrongful objective

Answer 4

NONE ## Footnote Factual impossibility = NOT defense Withdrawal = NOT defense to conspiracy itself BUT can be defense to limit liability for co-conspirators' subsequent crimes if withdrawal through affirmative act that notifies everyone in time for ppl to abandon the plans

Answer 5

Asking, inciting, counseling, advising, urging, or commanding another to commit a crime AND intent that person solicited commit the crime | Agreement --> merges into conspiracy OR attempt ## Footnote Crime is completed once person asks

Answer 6

Renunciation if D prevents commission of crime, i.e., persuading persno not to commit it (under MPC) | Factual impossibility = NOT defense

Answer 7

Act done w/ specific intent to commit a crime (through an **overt** act) that false short of completing the crime | Must have specific intent for substantive crime; merges into offense ## Footnote Overt act = *substantial* step in furtehrance of crime

Answer 8

Legal impossibility Abandonment under modern statutes (if fully voluntary + complete abandonment of cirminal purpose) but not at common law | NOT factual impossibility

Answer 9

unlawful killing of another human with **malice aforethought** | must also include factual cause + proximate cause

Answer 10

1. Intent to kill 2. Intent to inflict great bodily injury 3. reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life 4. OR intent to commit felony

Answer 11

First degree murder (intent to kill and intent to commit felony) Second degree murder (intent to inflict great bodily harm and reckless indifference to unjustifiable high risk to human life)

Answer 12

Premeditated killing (of victim human AND w/ intent or knowledge that conduct would cause death) Felony murder for BARRK felonies (burglary, arson, robbery, rape, kidnsapping) - Felony must be distinct from killing - Death must have been foreseeable - Death must have been caused BEFORE D's immediate flight from felony ended (once felon reaches place of temporary safety, subsequent deaths = NOT felony murder) ## Footnote When co-felon killed --> D not liable Proximate cause theory --> felons liable for deaths of innocent victims caused by someone other than felon Alternative agency theory --> killing must be committed by felon or their agent

Answer 13

Voluntary intoxication Unreasonable mistake of fact And any defenses to underlying felony

Answer 14

Intent to inflict great bodily harm Reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life (depraved heart killing)

Answer 15

Killing in the heat of passion resulting from an *adequate provocation* by victim + D was in fact provoked and actually lost control + not sufficient time between provocation and killing for passions of reasonable person to cool off + D did not in fact cool off during time ## Footnote Adequate provocation: would arounse sudden and intense passion in mind of ordinary person (if reaction NOT reasonable, would not be reduced to voluntary manslaughter)

Answer 16

D has an honest but unreasonable belief that their life is in imminent danger | even if D is at fault in starting altercation ## Footnote If reasonable belief --> would just be perfect self-defense (and acquittal)

Answer 17

a killing committed w/ criminal negligence or in commission of a misdemeanor or non-BARRK felony ## Footnote Under MPC --> recklessness (requiring *substantial* risk)

Answer 18

Cause-in-fact Proximate cause (result = natural and probable consequence of conduct) - Act that still hastens inevitable result = legal cause of that result | Simultaneous acts of 2 or + people may be independently sufficient cause ## Footnote Beware of SUPERSEDING FACTORS: - Victim's preexisting weakness or fragility does not break chain of causation - 3rd party negligent medical + victim's refusal of medical treament also NOT superseding

Answer 19

Unlawful application of force to person or another resulting in either bodily injury or offensive touching | general intent crime ## Footnote Force need not applied directly (e.g., poisoning through food; dog attack)

Answer 20

An attempt to commit battery OR intentional creation (other than by mere words) of reasonable apprehension of imminent bodily harm | if actual touching = battery

Answer 21

Unlawful confinement of a person w/o valid consent | if alternate reasonable routes available --> confinement not met ## Footnote consent to confinement? no imprisonment BUT coercion, threats, deception, incapacity, etc. will invalidate consent

Answer 22

Confinement of a person that involves: - movement of a victim OR - concealment in a secret place

Answer 23

Slightest penetration will complete the crime | Must be WITHOUT effective consent ## Footnote Intercourse by actual force or by threats of great and immeidate bodily harm OR VIctim incapable fo consenting or fraudulently cause dto believe that act is not intercourse Statutory rape = strict liability crime

Answer 24

Wrongful taking Carrying away of tangible personal property of another By trespass W/ intent to permanently deprive | Slightest movement = sufficient ## Footnote Intent to deprive owner must exist AT TIME of taking Specific intent --> so intent to borrow would NOT be larceny Continuing trespass: if person wrongfully takes w/o intent to steal but later keeps it (still larceny) CAN commit larceny of own property if possession belongs to someone else (e.g., bailee - mechanic repairing car)

Answer 25

Fraudulent conversion of personal property of another | initial *lawful* possession (for authorized purpose) ## Footnote Embezzler does not have to receive the benefit or carry away the property MUST be intent to defraud

Answer 26

Obtaining TITLE to personal property (including money) Of another By intentional false statement Of past or existing fact W/ the intent to defraud other | cannot be by false promise to do something in the future ## Footnote Larceny by trick: victim is tricked by misrepresentation into giving up POSSESSION/CUSTODY of property

Answer 27

Taking of personal property Of another From the other's person or presence By force or threat W/ intent to permanently deprive | Presence = broadly construed Threat = imminent harm

Answer 28

Knowingly seeking to obtain property or services by means of *future* threat (not imminent)

Answer 29

Breaking and entering Dwelling of another At NIGHT W/ intent to commit a felony therein | Breaking=actual (involving *some* force) or constructive (fraud/threats) ## Footnote Entry = placing any part of body or instrument used to commit crime into structure Dwelling = HOUSE Of another = whoever has right of occupancy (regardless of ownerhsip) Intent must exist AT TIME of breaking

Answer 30

Malicious burning Of dwelling of ANOTHER | Not one's own home Only burning/charring (not scorching) ## Footnote No specific intent requirement so acting w/ reckless disregard/indfiference = sufficient

Answer 31

whether at the time of the crime D was so mentally ill as to be entitled to acquittal * *M'Naghten* Rule: D lacked ability to know wrongfulness of actions at time of conduct (b/c of disease of mind that caused defect of reason) * Irresistible Impule Test: D lacked capacity to control actions or conform conduct to the law * *Durham* Rule (Products Test): D's conduct was product of mental illness (*broader than above 2*) * MPC Test: D had a mental disease or defect that lacked substantial capacity to appreciate criminality of conduct OR conform conduct to law

Answer 32

Self-induced intoxication that is a defense ONLY to specific intent crimes

Answer 33

Unknowingly being intoxicated or becoming intoxicated under duress | Form of insanity --> can be defense to ALL crimes

Answer 34

At common law: * <7 = no liability * 7-14 = rebuttal presumption that child was unable to understand wrongfulness of acts * 14+ = treated as asults Under modern statutes: * no child can be convicted of crime until a stated age is reached (13-14) but can be delinquent

Answer 35

At any time victim REASONABLY believes force is about to be used on them

Answer 36

Majority rule: deadly force any time victim REASONABLY believes deadly force is about to be used on them + person is w/o fault (mere words = insufficienc) Minority rule: duty to retreat if safe first (except frmo home, if victim of robbery, or police w/ lawful arrest) ## Footnote Initial aggressor? * must effectively withdraw from confrontation + communicate that desire * OR * victim of initial aggression escalates into deadly altercation + initial aggressor no chance to withdraw

Answer 37

Defense of dwelling Defense of other property ## Footnote *Sometimes* defense of others if reasonable belief that other person assisted would have had right ot use force in their own defense

Answer 38

Only to regain possession of property that they reasonably believe was wrongfully taken ONLY IF in immediate pursuit of taker

Answer 39

D reasonably believed that another preson would imminently inflict death or great bodily harm upon them or family member (ALWAYS ONLY A PERSON) if D did not commit the crime | BUT NOT FOR intentional homicides ## Footnote Threats to property = NOT sufficient for duress

Answer 40

Person reasonably believes that commission of crime necessary to avoid imminent and greater injury to society than that involved in crime | objective standard ## Footnote Common law: natural forces

Answer 41

D lacked state of mind required for crime Disproving specific intent --> mistake does not have to be reasonable Disproving any other state of mind ---> mistake must be reasonable | does NOT apply to strict liability crimes

Answer 42

NOT defense

Answer 43

Valid defense ONLY if... 1. criminal design originated w/ law enforcement officers (not private citizens) 2. AND D was not predisposed to commit crime prior to gov't contact

Answer 44

D receives stolen property That he KNOWS was obtained through a criminal offense W/ intent to permanently deprive owner of that property Property must actually be stolen at time of D's receipt

Crim Law Flashcards

(69 cards)