CRIM LAW Flashcards
SPECIFIC INTENT CRIMES (CL)
SPECIFIC INTENT CRIMES (CL): (11)
Doing a proscribed act with a specific intent or objective.
1) Solicitation (Inchoate Offense) - Students
2) Conspiracy (Inchoate Offense) - Can
3) Attempt (Inchoate Offense) - Always
4) First Degree Premeditated Murder - Fake
5) Assault - A
6) Larceny - Laugh
7) Embezzlement - Even
8) False Pretenses - For
9) Robbery - Ridiculous
10) Burglary - Bar
11) Forgery - Facts
GENERAL INTENT CRIMES (CL)
GENERAL INTENT CRIMES (CL): (4)
Awareness of all factors constituting the crime i.e., Deft knows he’s acting in a proscribed way and that all required attendant circumstances exist.
1) Battery
2) Rape
3) Kidnapping
4) False Imprisonment
*General intent can be inferred from merely doing the act.
Almost all Crimes require at least general intent.
MALICE CRIMES (CL)
MALICE CRIMES (CL): (2) Reckless disregard of an obvious or high risk that a particular harmful result will occur.
1) CL Murder
2) Arson
Defenses to specific intent crimes do NOT apply to malice Crimes.
STRICT LIABILITY CRIMES (CL)
STRICT LIABILITY CRIMES (CL): (2, maybe 3)
Don’t need to be aware of all factors constituting the crime i.e., merely doing the crime is enough for guilt.
1) Statutory Rape
2) Selling Alcohol to Minors
3) Bigamy (some jdxs)
Defenses that negate state of mind are not available (e.g., mistake of fact).
MPC FAULT STANDARDS
MPC Fault Standards
Purposely: CONSCIOUS OBJECT to engage in proscribed conduct. Subjective.
Knowingly: AWARENESS that conduct is of a PARTICULAR NATURE or will CAUSE a PARTICULAR RESULT. Subjective.
Recklessly: CONSCIOUS DISREGARD of a substantial and unjustifiable risk. Subjective & Objective.
Negligently: FAILURE to BE AWARE of a substantial or unjustifiable risk. Objective.
INCHOATE CRIMES
Inchoate Crimes (3)
1) Conspiracy
2) Solicitation
3) Attempt
Inchoate Crimes–SOLICITATION
ELEMENTS
Inchoate Crimes–Solicitation ELEMENTS
PHYSICAL ACT:
Solicitation of another to commit a
crime. Don’t need overt act other than
the solicitation.
MENTAL FAULT (specific intent):
Intent for the person solicited to commit
the crime.
Inchoate Crimes–CONSPIRACY:
ELEMENTS
Inchoate Crimes–Conspiracy ELEMENTS
*Conspiracy is tested most out of the
inchoate crimes
PHYSICAL ACT: Agreement b/t 2+ persons to
accomplish the same object by mutual
action. Dont need to expressly agree;
joint action enough.
CL: conspiracy complete when requisite
intent reached.
*MPC: most jdxs also REQUIRE an OVERT
ACT IN FURTHERANCE of conspiracy
(mere prep counts)
MENTAL FAULT (specific int): (EACH person)
(1) Intent to AGREE (i.e., enter agreement)
(2) Intent to achieve an UNLAWFUL
OBJECTIVE (the object of the
agreement/conspiracy).
MPC: unilateral approach–one guilty mind
CL: bilateral app–need 2 guilty minds (so if 1 person faking (e.g. undercover cop), can’t commit conspiracy)
CAN’T be husband and wife
OR corp and its agent
OR w/ member of a protected class
OR if all co-conspirators
*ACQUITTED (shows no one w/
whom Deft could conspire), but
if co-conspirators not even
tried, Deft CAN be convicted–
*acquittal is KEY to get Deft off.
Inchoate Crimes–CONSPIRACY:
DEFENSES
Inchoate Crimes–Conspiracy
DEFENSES
NO Defense: Factual Impossibility & Withdrawal
- Can withdraw from other crimes
committed by co-conspirators in
furtherance of the conspiracy, but not
the conspiracy itself (bc conspiracy
committed upon agreeing)
Inchoate Crimes–CONSPIRACY:
What’s the WHARTON RULE?
Inchoate Crimes–Conspiracy: Wharton Rule
Inchoate Crimes–ATTEMPT
ELEMENTS
Inchoate Crimes–Attempt
(mental fault and physical act)
Physical act:
Act that falls short of completing the
crime (must be more than mere prep).
- CL: proximity test: come dangerously
close to completing the crime e.g.
point & shoot gun @ V to find out
gun’s broken.
- MPC: Act or omission that constitutes a
SUBSTANTIAL STEP in course of
conduct planned to culminate the
commission of the crime that
strongly corroborates the actor’s
crim purpose.
EXAM TIP: overt act for attempt is
much more substantial than act for
conspiracy.
Mental fault (specific intent):
- Intent to complete the crime
Ex: Attempted murder = specific
intent to kill (even though murder
doesn’t require specific intent)
***Attempt ALWAYS a SPECIFIC intent
crime, even if the crime attempted is
not (e.g. even though CL MURDER is
a malicious intent crime, ATTEMPTED
CL murder requires the specific intent
to kill).
*NO such thing as attempt + negligence (bc implies “accident”–contradictory bc you can’t intend to commit an accident). Also, no attempt + recklessness (for same rx)
Inchoate Crimes–ATTEMPT
DEFENSES
Inchoate Crimes–Attempt
Defenses
1) LEGAL IMPOSSIBILITY
If, after completing all INTENDED acts
Deft would’ve committed NO CRIME,
then can’t be guilty of attempt for
FAILING to do the same.
2) ABANDONMENT:
D changed his mind and abandoned
plan before intended CRIME
COMPLETED.
MPC: Yes, fully VOLUNTARY &
COMPLETE abandonment IS a
defense.
CL: No defense–crime of attempt
COMPLETED if D had INTENT &
committed an OVERT ACT.
*NO Defense: Factual Impossibility
Inchoate Crimes–CONSPIRACY
MERGER for Conspiracy?
MERGER for Conspiracy?
NO. If crime completed, Deft CAN be GUILTY for BOTH:
(1) Conspiracy to commit X [the crime]; &
(2) X [crime actually completed]
*EXAM TIP: Important to know this!
Inchoate Crimes–ATTEMPT:
MERGER for Attempt?
What’s the possible PROSECUTION for Attempt?
Inchoate Crimes–ATTEMPT:
MERGER for Attempt? YES
What’s the possible PROSECUTION for Attempt?
CHARGED: Only w/ COMPLETED crime
GUILT: Either crime OR attempt (not both)
CHARGED: Only w/ ATTEMPT
GUILT: Attempt ONLY (NOT
completed crime)
LEGAL v. FACTUAL IMPOSSIBILITY DEFENSE for ATTEMPT–Q(s) to Ask Yourself.
LEGAL v. FACTUAL IMPOSSIBILITY DEFENSE for ATTEMPT– (2) Qs to Ask:
1) If D completed all INTENDED ACTS; AND
2) Circumstances were as he BELIEVED them TO BE…
Would D have committed a crime?
- YES = FACTUAL Impossibility (No Def)
- NO = LEGAL Impossibility (Y, Def)
Inchoate Crimes–SOLICITATION
DEFENSES
Inchoate Crimes–SOLICITATION
DEFENSES
1) Solicitor could NOT be found GUITY of the COMPLETED crime bc of legislative intent to exempt her (e.g. minor female can’t be guilty of statutory rape, so can’t be guilty for solicitation of statutory rape).
Iffy:
2) RENUNCIATION or W/D
- Most jdx say NO DEFENSE to solicitation
- MPC: RENUNCIATION IS DEFENSE if D
PREVENTS the COMMISSION of
crime e.g. persuade person solicited
not to commit the crime.
NO Defense: person solicited no convicted, or that the crime solicited could NOT IN FACT be successful (factual impossibility?)
Inchoate Crimes–SOLICITATION:
MERGER for SOLICITATION?
Inchoate Crimes–SOLICITATION: MERGER for SOLICITATION?
YES. Solicitor can be punished for
(1) SOLICITATION, OR
(2) Any of the following crimes: If person
solicited commits:
a) commits CRIME: BOTH that person
&; solicitor can be liable for CRIME.
b) commits Acts SUFFICIENT for
ATTEMPT: BOTH can be liable for
ATTEMPT.
c) AGREES to commit crime but
DOESN’T even commit acts
sufficient for attempt: both can be
liable for CONSPIRACY.
*(1) OR (2), but NOT (1) AND (2).
Must be either or.
DEFENSES Negating Criminal Capacity–INSANITY: M’NAGHTEN RULE
Responsibility & Criminal Capacity–INSANITY: M’NAGHTEN RULE
Deft entitled to acquittal if:
1) had a disease of the mind;
2) caused by mental defect;
3) such that Deft LACKED the ABILITY at
the time of his actions to either:
a) KNOW the WRONGFULNESS of his
actions; OR
b) UNDERSTAND the NATURE and
quality of his actions.
I.e., Deft doesn’t KNOW right from wrong OR doesn’t UNDERSTAND his actions.
DEFENSES Negating Criminal Capacity–INSANITY: IRRESISTABLE IMPULSE
Responsibility & Criminal Capacity–INSANITY: IRRESISTABLE IMPULSE
Deft was UNABLE to CONTROL his ACTIONS or CONFORM his conduct to the law i.e., Deft couldn’t resist the impulse.
DEFENSES Negating Criminal Capacity–INSANITY: DURHAM (NH) TEST
Responsibility & Criminal Capacity–INSANITY: DURHAM (NH) TEST
Crime was the product of his mental illness i.e., BUT FOR his mental illness, Deft would NOT have DONE the ACT.
DEFENSES Negating Criminal Capacity–INSANITY: ALI & MPC TEST
Responsibility & Criminal Capacity–INSANITY: ALI & MPC TEST
1) Had mental disease or defect; and
2) As a result, he lacked the substantial
capacity to either:
a) APPRECIATE the CRIMINALITY of
his conduct; OR
b) CONFORM his conduct to the
requirements of the LAW.
*Combination of McNaghten and Irresistable Impulse.
DEFENSES Negating Criminal Capacity–INSANITY: Burden of Proving Insanity?
Responsibility & Criminal Capacity–INSANITY: Burden of Proving Insanity.
Deft must RAISE insanity DEFENSE, then
CL: Deft has burden of proving he was
insane by preponderance of the evid.
Fed Cts: require Deft to prove based on
clear and convincing evid.
MPC: Prosecution must prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that Deft was SANE.
DEFENSES Negating Criminal Capacity–INTOXICATON Voluntary
DEFENSES Negating Criminal Capacity–INTOXICATON Voluntary
DEFENSES Negating Criminal Capacity–INTOXICATON Involuntary
DEFENSES Negating Criminal Capacity–INTOXICATON Involuntary
DEFENSES Negating Criminal Capacity–INFANCY
DEFENSES Negating Criminal Capacity–INFANCY
DEFENSES Negating Criminal Capacity–DIMINISHED CAPACITY
DEFENSES Negating Criminal Capacity–DIMINISHED CAPACITY (some states)
DEFENSES Negating Criminal Capacity–TYPES
DEFENSES Negating Criminal Capacity–TYPES (3 maybe 4 depending on Jdx)
1) Insanity (4 test)
2) Intoxication (2 categories)
a) Voluntary
b) Involuntary
3) Infancy (2 categories: under 7 & 14)
4) Diminished Capacity (some states)
DEFENSES Negating Criminal Capacity–INSANITY: DIFFERENT TESTS?
DEFENSES Negating Criminal Capacity–INSANITY: DIFFERENT TESTS (4)
1) McNaghten Test
2) Irresistible Impulse Test
3) Durham (NH) Test [But-For]
4) ALI & MPC
SPECIFIC INTENT CRIMES–MNEMONIC
Students Can Always Fake A Laugh Even For Ridiculous Bar Facts
(11 total)
Importance of SPECIFIC Intent Crimes?
Importance of Specific Intent Crimes?
Qualify for (2) additional defenses not available for other types of crimes.
ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY: Definition of ACCOMPLICE.
ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY: Definition of ACCOMPLICE.
An ACCOMPLICE is one who:
1) AIDS
2) ADVISES (or counsels-same, same); OR
3) ENCOURAGES
....the principal in the commission of
the crime charged.
ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY: Accomplices and WITHDRAWAL
ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY: Accomplices and WITHDRAWAL
Encourage = REPUDIATE Aid = NEUTRALIZE assistance
ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY–Accomplices and WITHDRAWAL: What’s an ALTERNATIVE means of Withdrawing?
ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY–Accomplices and WITHDRAWAL: What’s an ALTERNATIVE means of Withdrawing?
CALL THE POLICE.
Inchoate Crimes–CONSPIRACY: Requirements for CO-CONSPIRATOR LIABILITY?
Inchoate Crimes–CONSPIRACY: Requirements for CO-CONSPIRATOR LIABILITY?
2 Fs of CO-CONSPIRATOR LIABILITY:
1) FURTHERANCE 2) FORESEEABLE
If you have both, each conspirators is liable for ALL the crimes of co-conspirators if those crimes were committed (1) in FURTHERANCE of the conspiracy, and (2) were foreseeable.
*Think: shorthand trick instructor gave you
Inchoate Crimes–CONSPIRACY: MAJORITY APPROACH ELEMENTS
[One we’ll apply on exam]
Inchoate Crimes–CONSPIRACY: MAJORITY APPROACH ELEMENTS [The one we’ll apply on MBE]
(1) AN AGREEMENT b/t 2+ persons to
accomplish the same object by mutual
action (physical act)–
Need OVERT ACT (any little act works)
[note: not the CL–only rule where
majority differs from CL so we’re gonna
APPLY MAJ. APP, and NOT the CL.
(2) INTENT to AGREE
(3) INTENT to pursue UNLAWFUL OBJECTIVE
**BILATERAL Approach for agreement
requirement: Need 2 guilty
Ps to have both requisite guilty
intents.
- If one feigning, doesn’t count;
- All co-consp acquitted, cant be
guilty
Inchoate Crimes–CONSPIRACY: What’s the MAJORITY/CL APP for the AGREEMENT REQUIREMENT–BILATERAL APP?
[One we’ll apply on exam]
Inchoate Crimes–CONSPIRACY: What’s the MAJORITY/CL BILATERAL APPROACH for the AGREEMENT REQUIREMENT? [One we’ll apply on exam]
- *BILATERAL Approach for Agreement Requirement: Need 2 guilty Ps to have both requisite guilty intents, which in effect means:
- If one feigning, doesn’t count;
- All co-consp acquitted, cant be guilty
Inchoate Crimes–CONSPIRACY: What’s the MINORITY/MPC APP for the AGREEMENT REQUIREMENT–UNILATERAL APP?
[*NOT the one we’ll apply on exam, unless specified to do so**]
Inchoate Crimes–CONSPIRACY: What’s the MINORITY/MPC UNILATERAL APPROACH for the AGREEMENT REQUIREMENT? [*NOT the one we’ll apply on exam, unless specified to do so**]
**UNILATERAL APPROACH for Agreement Requirement: Need only ONE guilty party to have requisite guilty intents which in effect means (opposite for CL/Maj.):
- If one feigning, the one person w/ intent
can still be found guilty;
- Even if all other co-consp acquitted, the
last person not acquitted CAN still be
guilty.
OPPOSITE from CL/Maj.
Inchoate Crimes–CONSPIRACY: What’s the MAJORITY APP for the ACT REQUIREMENT?
[One we’ll apply on exam]
Inchoate Crimes–CONSPIRACY: What’s the MAJORITY APPROACH for the ACT REQUIREMENT? [One we’ll apply on exam]
Act requirement for Conspiracy requires:
(1) An AGREEMENT; AND
**PLUS (2) Some OVERT ACT in
furtherance of the conspiracy.
*ANY little act counts!
Inchoate Crimes–CONSPIRACY: What’s the MINORITY/CL APP for the ACT REQUIREMENT?
[NOT the one we’ll apply on exam, unless specified to do so]
Inchoate Crimes–CONSPIRACY: What’s the MINORITY/CL APP for the ACT REQUIREMENT? [NOT the one we’ll apply on exam, unless specified to do so]
Act requirement for CL Conspiracy requires ONLY an AGREEMENT (itself)!
*UNLIKE Majority App, CL does NOT additionally require an OVERT ACT in furtherance of the conspiracy–the agreement itself completes the conspiracy (assuming requisite intent exists too).
