Crim Law Final Flashcards
(139 cards)
1
Q
crime formula
A
C = AR (VA or OM + Causation (BC + PC) + MR = no D
2
Q
crime
A
an act or omission and its accompanying state of mind, which if proven beyond a reasonable doubt and absent an affirmative defense
3
Q
utilitarianism punishment theory
A
to deter crime the punishment must must impose sufficient pain that, when added to any other pain anticipated by the criminal, will exceed the pleasure he anticipates from the crime
4
Q
utilitarianism goals
A
general and specific deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation
5
Q
utilitarianism concerns
A
ignores human rights and human dignity
6
Q
retributivism punishment theory
A
state is obligated to impose punishment only if the actor deserves it, and if so, to the full extent that the actor deserves it
7
Q
retributivism concerns
A
glorifies anger, irrationally based on emotions, legitimizes hatred
8
Q
negative retributivism system
A
state is obligated to impose punishment only if the actor deserves it, and if so, then no more than the actor deserves, but only if the good consequences of imposing it outweigh the bad consequences
9
Q
The Queen v. Dudley and Stephens
A
Rule = The defense of necessity does not justify homicide unless the killing was committed in self-defense
10
Q
Dudley key takeaways
A
necessity is no defense to murder, maybe? what to do with Brooks? special verdict?
11
Q
actus reus
A
voluntary act or omission, causation, social harm
12
Q
punishing thoughts
A
no one is punishable for this thoughts
13
Q
the “act”
A
a bodily movement, a muscular contraction
14
Q
what makes an act voluntary
A
aa willed movement or a movement that which follows our own voliition
15
Q
involuntary act
A
reflective actions, spasms, seizures or convulsions, bodily movements while the actor is unconscious or asleep
16
Q
mens rea
A
an act does not make a person guilty unless the mind be guilty
17
Q
CL MR
A
INTENT: purpose or knowledge, recklessness, negligence
18
Q
MPC MR
A
purpose, knowledge, recklessness, negligence
19
Q
CL MR intentionally
A
at CL a person intentionally causes the SH of an offense if it is he purposely causes the harm, and he acts with knowledge that the SH is virtually certain
20
Q
transferred intent purpose
A
putting the bad aim wrongdoer in the same position he would have found himself if his aim had been good
21
Q
transferred intent functionally
A
the law transfers the actor’s state of mind re the intended victim to the unintended one
22
Q
characteristics of a transferred intent case
A
A intends to cause a specific harm to one specific individual B, B escapes unscathed, and unintended victim C suffers the precise harm meant for B
23
Q
transferred intent application
A
dependent on statute, does not transfer intent of intending to cause one type of SH to another SH
24
Q
CL MR recklessness
A
criminal recklessness requires proof that the actor disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk of which he was aware, implicating subjective fault
25
CL MR negligence
objective risk, an actor is not blamed for a wrongful state of mind but instead for his morally blameworthy failure to live up to the standards of the reasonable person
26
CL MR reasonable person analysis
courts look at the gravity of the harm that would result from D's conduct, the probability of such harm occurring, and the burden to the D from desisting from the risky conduct
27
CL specific intent*
an offense is a specific intent offense if it requires proof of intent to cause a result, intent to commit some future act, or awareness of attendant circumstance
28
CL general intent
prosecution needs to prove D intended to act, no culpability analysis
29
MPC kinds of culpability (MR)*****
elemental approach, MPC ditches culpability meaning of MR and distinction between specific and general intent
30
CL intent
purposely, knowingly
31
MPC intent
purposely, knowingly, recklessly, negligently
32
MPC purposely
a person acts purposely if the element involves a result of his conduct, it is his conscious objective to cause such result, and if the element involves the attendant circumstances he is aware of them
33
MPC knowingly
a person acts knowingly if the element involves the attendant circumstances he knows they exist, and if the element involves a result of his conduct he is practically certain his conduct will cause such a result
34
MPC recklessly
a person acts recklessly if he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustified risk that a material element exists or will result from his conduct
35
MPC negligently
a person is negligent if the actor should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct
36
Recklessly results analysis
what did the actor believe was the probability her conduct would cause the result? why did she take that risk? do her reasons for taking the risk as she saw it justify her taking that risk? if they do the actor did not recklessly cause the result
37
recklessly attendant circumstances analysis
did the actor suspect that the circumstance existed? if yes, the actor recklessly believed that circumstance
38
mistake of law
mistake of law or ignorance of the law is not an excuse defense
39
mistake of law defense exceptions
reasonable-reliance doctrine erroneous interpretation of the law secured from a public officer in charge of its administration, interpretation or enforcement
40
mistake of law analysis
does D have a valid failure of proof defense? if ignorance of same law the claim fails unless the D reasonably relied on an official statement of the law or the defendant lacked notice
41
causation CL
but-for cause and proximate cause
42
but-for cause test
but for d's VA or Os would SH have occurred when it did? if no, D is an but-for cause of the result
43
substantial factor test
used in cases involving simultaneous sufficient causes, all parties whose actions contributed to outcome are liable
44
proximate cause
serves the purpose of determining who or what events among those that satisfy the but-for standard should be held accountable for the resulting harm
45
proximate cause
foreseeability
46
issues of proximate cause
act of god, act of an independent 3rd party, contributory negligence by the victim
47
facts that break the causal chain
intervening cause was unforeseeable, more than a de minimus contribution, a free deliberate and informed human act; D did not intent the result; victim reached apparent safety
48
responsive intervening causes
does not relieve the initial wrongdoer of criminal responsibility unless the response was abnormal and if abnormal also unforeseeable
49
coincidental intervening causes
a coincidental intervening cause relieves the original wrongdoer of criminal responsibility unless the coincidental intervention was foreseeable
50
CL intended consequences doctrine
strictly applied, the consequence itself must not only have been intended but also that the method used to accomplish it must have been intended to
51
CL apparent safety doctrine
when a D's active force has come to rest in a position of apparent safety, the court will follow it no longer
52
CL free deliberate informed human intervention
a D is far more apt to be relieved of criminal responsibility in the case of a free deliberate and informed intervening human nagent
53
CL omission
an omission will rarely supersede an earlier operative wrongful act
54
MPC PC culpability
was the way the actual result came about too remote or accidental from the intended result to have a just bearing on the actor's liability
55
concurrence of elements
D must possess the requisite MR at the same moment that her VA or O causes the SH
56
CL murder
the killing of a human being by another human being with malice aforethought
57
CL manslaughter
an unlawful killing of a human being by another human being without malice aforethought
58
CL malice murder
1. express malice, intention to kill another; 2. intention to inflict grievous bodily injury on another; 3. implied malice, depraved heart murder; 4. implied malice, felony murder
59
MPC felony murder rule
the intention to commit a felony during the commission or attempted commission of which a death results, presumed recklessness which is a rebuttable presumption
60
CL intent to commit felony - felony murder rule
constitutes malice required for CL murder
61
CL voluntary manslaughter
an intentional killing committed in a sudden heat of passion as the result of adequate provocation, recklessness mens rea*
62
CL involuntary manslaughter
negligent homicide, and misdemeanor manslaughter
63
willful killing
a specific intent to kill
64
deliberate killing
cold-blooded, free from the influence of excitement or passion, speaks to the quality of the thought process, takes time
65
premeditated killing
thought about beforehand, premeditation involves an appreciable quantity of time put into formulating intent, and giving that matter at least a second thought
66
CL adequate provocation defense
actor must have acted in heat of passion, passion must have been the result of adequate provocation, the actor must not have had a reasonable opportunity to cool off, and there must be a causal link between the provocation the passion and the homicide
67
CL state of passion
provocation defense does not apply unless D is in a state of passion which includes anger, fear, furious resentment, wild desperation, intense emotion
68
CL adequate provocation
includes only serious assault on oneself, serious assault on a close relative, mutual combat, discovery of a spouse's adultery, and no reasonable person could have cooled off between provocation and killing
69
CL and words
general rule is that words alone do not constitute adequate provocation, information words have a higher weight
70
MPC and words
words may be enough to constitute provocation
71
CL misdirected retaliation rule
the heat of passion defense may only be asserted if the D attempts to kill the person who performed the provocative act rather than an innocent bystander
72
CL causal connection
even if a person is adequately provoked the provocation defense is unavailable to a D whose motivation for the homicide is causally unrelated to the provocation
73
MPC extreme mental or emotional disturbance
two components, one subjective and one objective
74
MPC EMED subjective component
the subjective component is the extreme mental or emotional disturbance, that D experienced intense feelings sufficient to cause loss of self control at time of homicide is enough
75
MPC EMED objective component
there must be a reasonable explanation or excuse, reasonable is considered from the viewpoint of a person in the actor's situation under the circumstances as he believes them to be
76
MPC EMED
specific provocative act is not required to trigger EMED defense, even if there is a provocation ti need not involve an injury, affront, or other provocative act on D by decedent, words alone can warrant a manslaughter instruction, no rigid cooling-off rule
77
CL intent to inflict grievous bodily injury
CL malice is implied if a person intends to cause grievous bodily injury to another, but death results
78
CL depraved heart
a depraved heart homicide is one in which the actor's conduct manifested in known risk taking that evinces an extreme indifference to the value of one or more human lives
79
involuntary manslaughter v. negligent homicide
involuntary manslaughter = CL, negligent homicide = MPC
80
CL felony murder
declares one is guilty of murder if a death results from conduct during the commission or attempted commission of any felony, even if killing occurs accidentally and unforeseeably, strict liability!!
81
res gestae
in order for the felony murder rule to operate the homicide must occur within the res gestae of the underlying felony
82
res gestae distance
the period typically begins when the actor has reached the point at which she could be prosecuted for an attempt to commit a felony and ends when she reaches a place of temporary safety
83
res gestae time
when did the killing conduct occur
84
res gestae causation
there must be a causal relationship between the felony and the homicide
85
killings in the perpetration of a felony majority approach
felony murder rule does not extend to a killing growing out of the commission of the felony if directly attributable to the act of one other than the defendant or those associated with him
86
killings in the perpetration of a felony minority rule
a felon is liable for any death that is the proximate cause of the felony even if the shooter is not one of the felons
87
CL self defense
a non aggressor is justified in using proportional force upon another life if he reasonably believes such force necessary to protect himself from imminent use of deadly force by another
88
CL self defense use of deadly force
deadly force only justified in self protection if the actor reasonably believes that its use is necessary to prevent imminent and unlawful use of deadly force or force likely to cause serious bodily injury by the aggressor
89
CL self defense reasonable belief
an actor can successfully claim self defense if he or she honestly and reasonably believes that the elements of the defense exist even if his or her belief turns out to have been mistaken
90
CL aggressor rule
an initial aggressor cannot claim self defense unless he or she renounces his or her initial aggression by reasonably trying to communicate to their adversary intent to withdraw and in good faith attempts to do so
91
self defense MPC vs. CL
MPC wanted to make space for battered women, issue is not how soon the aggressor's force will be used but rather whether innocent persons need to use imminent force exists immediately, MPC no initial aggressor rule
92
MPC self defense
the use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the actor believes such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by such other person on the present occasion
93
MPC self defense proportionality
deadly force can only be used to protect against death, serious bodily harm, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat
94
MPC retreat rule
an actor cannot use deadly force if he or she knows that he or she can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating
95
CL necessity elements
imminence, direct causal relationship, no effective legal alternatives, lesser harm principle
96
CL necessity v. MPC necessity
CL = necessity not a defense to murder, and not available for human forces, is an imminence requirement; MPC = defense to murder, available for human forces, no imminence requirement, no clean hands doctrine
97
CL clean hands doctrine
D has to come into situation with clean hands, they did not do something before hand to provoke situation
98
MPC necessity defense
only applies to purpose or knowledge MRs
99
CL duress
D must reasonably believe that the threatened harm is genuine and imminent, that he or she has no reasonably opportunity to escape, and that the threat is one of death or serious bodily injury to D or a close relative
100
CL duress limitations
limited to threats from another person, does not apply to murder, does not apply if D was negligent in creating conditions giving rise to the claim of duress
101
MPC duress
duress is an affirmative defense to unlawful conduct by the D if she was compelled to commit the offense by the use or threatened use of unlawful force by the coercer and a person of reasonable firmness in her situation would have been unable to resist the coercion
102
MPC duress limitations
not available if the actor recklessly placed herself in a situation in which it was probable that she would be subjected to coercion, duress not available if actor negligently placed herself in a situation if negligence is used to establish MR
103
MPC v CL duress
MPC does not require the D's unlawful act be a response to an imminent deadly threat, D may be raised in murder prosecutions, and imperiled person does not have to be D or a member of Ds family
104
MPC intoxication
risk taking begins when drinking began, why intoxication defense is rarely successful
105
CL intoxication issues
how did D become intoxicated, in what way did D's intoxication affect his culpability, and what type of offense is D charged with
106
CL voluntary intoxication
culpability exists if the person knowingly ingests a substance that he knows or should know can cause him to become intoxicated
107
CL involuntary intoxication
intoxication is involuntary if the actor is not to blame for becoming intoxicated either via coercion, innocent mistake, or prescribed medication which intoxicating effect if taken is unknown to D
108
relevance of intoxication
can negate mens rea and voluntary act requirements via a failure of proof or can be raised as an affirmative defense
109
CL M'Naghten rule
right wrong test, an actor is insane if he was laboring under such a defect of reason from disease of the mind as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing or if he did know it at the time of doing the act did not know the difference between right and wrong
110
legal/criminal wrong
at the moment the activity occurred did the D know they were breaking the law and there were consequences
111
moral wrong
at the moment the activity occurred did the D understand right from wrong
112
MPC insanity rule
an actor is insane if at the of the criminal conduct as a result of mental disease or defect he lacks substantial capacity to either appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform to the requirements of the law
113
MPC insanity exception
the terms mental disease or defect do not include an abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial conduct
114
deific decree doctrine
you are insane if god commands you to commit the crime, applies in some states that follow a M'Naghten type test in which the wrong refers to a moral wrong, God is correct and the rest of the world's social morality is wrong
115
MPC criminal attempt
occurs when a person with the intent to commit an offense performs some act done towards carrying out the attempt, action must constitute a substantial step
116
MPC substantial step
the substantial step required for criminal attempt is simply any conduct that has passed the preparatory stage and has moved to the point of perpetration of the target offense
117
complete-but-imperfect attempt
occurs when the actor performs all of the acts that she set out to do, but fails to attain her criminal goal
118
incomplete attempt
occurs when the actor does some of the acts necessary to achieve the criminal goal but she quits or is prevented from continuing
119
objectivism CL
focuses on actor's conduct which must "manifest criminality", the attempter is punished for the wrong of causing fear in the mind of the reasonable person
120
subjectivism MPC
focuses on actor's intent to commit a crime which conduct corroborates, attempter is punished for the wrong of forming the intent to commit a crime
121
attempts CL
for D to be guilty of attempting to commit the targeted offense, D's mental state regarding result element of conduct offense under CL must be intent = p or k
122
attempts MPC
for D to be guilty of attempting to commit the target offense, D's mental state regarding result element of conduct offense under MPC must be p or k
123
CL heat of passion/ MPC EMED exception to attempts
if murder was caused via provocation, murder was established via MR of p or k, MR is mitigated down to recklessness, crime is now manslaughter and can be attempted bc original MR was p or k
124
AR attempts
SH = endangerment, there is no causation in AR b/c no one died
125
CL dangerous proximity test
a person is guilty of an attempt when her conduct is in dangerous proximity to success or when an act is so near to the result that the danger of success is very great
126
CL dangerous proximity test factors
nearness of danger, greatness of harm, and degree of apprehension felt
127
impossibility defense
only applicable in CL jd
128
CL hybrid legal impossibility
actor's goal is illegal but commission of the offense is impossible due to the factual mistake of the legal status of some attendant circumstance that constitutes an element of the charged crime
129
factual impossibility
no defense at CL or MPC, actor's intended end constitutes a crime but she fails to consummate it because of a factual circumstance unknown to her or beyond her control
130
hybrid legal impossibility
yes defense CL, no defense MPC
131
abandonment CL
generally not defense to attempt at CL, applies as a defense only if D voluntarily and completely renounces her criminal purpose
132
abandonment MPC
applies as a defense only if D voluntarily and completely renounces his criminal purpose
133
accomplice CL
one is liable as an accomplice if she (1) gave assistance (this is very broad) with (2) the intent thereby to promote or facilitate commission of the crime
134
accomplice MPC
someone with requisite MR solicits, aids, agrees to aid, attempts to aid, or has a legal duty to prevent the commission of the offense but makes no effort to do so
135
status relationships
parents to their children, spouses to each other, employers to employees, invitors to invitees
136
accomplice liability causation
unnecessary, only need to look at in regards to innocent instrumentality
137
complicity MR
in order for D to be guilty as an accomplice in commission of target offense D's mental state regarding the result element of target offense under CL and MPC must be as required by substantive offense
138
complicity AR CL elements
solicitation/request or command, encouragement/psychological assistance, active assistance/aid, omission
139
complicity AR MPC factors
solicitation/request or command or solicitation/encouragement, aid, attempt to aid, agreement to aid, ommission
