Crim Law - Model Rule Statements

Question 1

depraved heart murder

Answer 1

In most states, a killing that results from reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life is a depraved-heart murder.

Question 2

involuntary manslaughter

Answer 2

involuntary manslaughter is an unintentional homicide that is either committed with criminal negligence or committed while the defendant is engaged in an unlawful act.

Criminal negligence is a grossly negligent action that puts another person at a significant risk of serious bodily injury or death. It requires more than ordinary tort negligence, but less than the conduct required for depraved-heart murder.

Under the Model Penal Code, criminal negligence is a defendant’s reckless act which is a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding person would observe in the defendant’s situation when the defendant was actually aware of the risk his conduct posed.

Question 3

duress

Answer 3

A defendant can claim the duress defense when a third party’s unlawful threat causes the defendant to reasonably believe that the only way to avoid death or serious bodily injury to himself or another is to violate the law, and the defendant violates the law.

Question 4

common law burglary

Answer 4

Common-law burglary is the breaking and entering of the dwelling of another at nighttime with the specific intent to commit a felony therein. “Breaking” is generally accomplished by using force to create an opening into a dwelling, but slight force, such as pushing open a window that was ajar, satisfies this element. “Entering” occurs when any portion of the defendant’s body crosses into the dwelling without permission through the opening created by the breaking.

Question 5

larceny

Answer 5

Larceny is the trespassory taking and carrying away of the personal property of another with the intent to permanently deprive that person of the property. When an initial taking was trespassory but there was no intent at the time to permanently deprive the person of the property, then the continuing trespass rule serves to deem the original trespass “continuing” so that it coincides with later-acquired criminal intent.

Question 6

embezzlement

Answer 6

Embezzlement is the fraudulent conversion of the property of another by a person who is in lawful possession of the property. Conversion is the inappropriate use of property, held pursuant to a trust agreement, which causes a serious interference with the owner’s rights to the property.

Question 7

receiving stolen property

Answer 7

To be guilty of receiving stolen property, the defendant must receive control of stolen property, know that the property is stolen, and intend to permanently deprive the owner of the property. Property that is unlawfully obtained through larceny, embezzlement, or false pretense is stolen property. The act of receiving the property must coincide with the recipient’s knowledge that the property is stolen. Some jurisdictions require that the defendant have actual, subjective knowledge that the property has been stolen. Other jurisdictions permit the defendant’s knowledge to be inferred from facts that would alert a reasonable person to unlawful acquisition of the property.

Question 8

second degree murder and mens rea

Answer 8

To be guilty of second-degree murder, a defendant must have acted with the requisite mens rea of malice aforethought. Malice aforethought includes the following mental states: the intent to kill, the intent to inflict serious bodily injury, reckless indifference to a known and unjustifiably high risk to human life (i.e., a “depraved heart”), or the intent to commit certain felonies.

Premeditation is the element that distinguishes first-degree murder from other types of murder. Premeditation means the defendant reflected on the idea of killing (even briefly) or planned the killing prior to carrying it out.

Question 9

homicide - actual cause

Answer 9

If a victim would not have died “but for” the defendant’s act, then the defendant’s act is the actual cause (i.e., “cause-in-fact”) of the killing. And when a defendant sets in motion forces that lead to the death of the victim, the defendant is the actual cause of the victim’s death.

Question 10

homicide - proximate cause & intervening cause

Answer 10

Proximate cause exists only when the defendant is deemed to be legally responsible for the crime. For the defendant to be legally responsible for the crime, the victim’s death must be foreseeable. That is, the death must be the natural and probable result of the defendant’s conduct (i.e., not too remote or accidental in its occurrence as to be unforeseeable). For example, actions by a force of nature that are not within the defendant’s control are generally not foreseeable.

However, an intervening cause will not relieve the defendant of criminal responsibility unless it was so out of the ordinary that it would be unjust to hold the defendant responsible. Consequently, an act that accelerates impending death is a legal cause of the death.