Crim rule statements

Question 1

Burden of proving insanity

Answer 1

In a majority of jurisdictions, the defendant has the burden of proving insanity

Question 2

What kinds of things constitute insanity

Answer 2

Insanity includes mental abnormalities that may affect legal responsibility

Question 3

Depraved heart murder

Answer 3

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

Question 4

Involuntary manslaughter

Answer 4

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

Question 5

Criminal negligence

Answer 5

Criminal negligence is a grossly negligent action that puts another person at significant risk of serious bodily injury or death.

Question 6

Reckless driving and depraved heart murder

Answer 6

Reckless driving alone is usually insufficient to support a finding of depravity absent some aggravating factor such as intoxication

Question 7

Duress

Answer 7

A defendant can claim duress as a 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 8

CL burglary

Answer 8

Common law burglary is the breaking and entering of the dwelling of another at nighttime with the specific intent to commit a felony therein

Question 9

Breaking

for purposes of burglary

Answer 9

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

Question 10

Entering

for purposes of burglary

Answer 10

Entering occurs when any portion of the defendant’s body crosses into the dwelling without permission through the opening created by the breaking

Question 11

Larceny

Answer 11

Larceny is the trespassory taking and carrying away of the personal property of another with specific intent to deprive the owner of the property

Question 12

Continuing trespass rule

Answer 12

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 13

Embezzlement

Answer 13

Embezzlement is the fraudulent conversion of the property of another by a person who is in lawful possession of the property

Question 14

Conversion

For embezzlement purposes

Answer 14

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 15

Receiving stolen property

Answer 15

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.

Question 16

Stolen property

Answer 16

Property that is unlawfully obtained through larceny, embezzlement, or false pretenses is stolen property

Question 17

Receiving stolen property and knowledge thereof

Answer 17

The act of receiving the property must coincide with the recipient’s knowledge that the property is stolen

Question 18

JDX split on knowledge of whether property is stolen

with regard to receipt of stolen property

Answer 18

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 19

Self defense

when not first aggressor

Answer 19

At common law, one who is not the aggressor is justified in using reasonable force against another person to prevent imminent unlawful harm to themself.

The harm to the defendant must be imminent, not a threat of future harm, and the person can only use as much force as is required to repel the attack

Question 20

Larceny by false pretenses

AKA false pretenses

Answer 20

Larceny by false pretenses requires
1. obtaining title to property
2. of another person
3. through the reliance of that person
4. on a known false representation of a material past or present fact
5. the misrepresentation is made with the intent to defraud

Question 21

What is NOT a false representation

Answer 21

A statement of opinion such as sales talk or puffery is not a false representation

Question 22

Acting knowingly

for false pretenses

Answer 22

Most courts find that a D acts knowingly and has knowledge of a particular fact when the D is aware of a high probability of the fact’s existence and deliberately avoids learning the truth

Question 23

Intent to defraud based on false pretenses

Answer 23

A defendant has the intent to defraud required to establish false pretenses when the D intends that the person to whom the false representation is made will rely on it

Question 24

4 kinds of malice aforethought

Answer 24

Malice aforethought includes the following mental states: intent to kill, intent to inflict serious bodily harm, reckless indifference to a known and unjustifiably high risk to human life, or the intent to commit certain felonies.

Question 25

Premeditation definition

Answer 25

Premeditation means the defendant reflected on the idea of killing, even briefly, or planned the killing prior to carrying it out

Question 26

Causation and murder

Answer 26

In order to be found guilty of murder, the prosecution must prove that the defendant caused the victim’s death. The prosecution must prove both actual and proximate causation.

Question 27

Actual cause of death

Answer 27

If a victim would not have died but for the defendant’s act, then the defendant’s act is the actual cause of the killing. Furthermore, 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 28

Proximate cause

Answer 28

Proximate cause exists when the defendant is legally responsible for the death. To be legally responsible, the victim’s death must be foreseeable. That is, the natural and probable result of the defendant’s conduct.

Question 29

Intervening causes and proximate cause

Answer 29

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.

Question 30

Is a defendant’s incompetency a bar to trial?

Answer 30

A defendant’s incompetency is a bar to trial.

Question 31

Constitutional requirement to investigate competence

Answer 31

The judge has a constitutional duty to investigate and determine the competence of the defendant to stand trial if such evidence is apparent to the judge.

Question 32

Test for whether a defendant is competent to stand trial

Answer 32

The test for whether a defendant is competent to stand trial is the same as whether they are competent to plead guilty: whether the defendant comprehends the nature of the proceedings against him and has the ability to consult with a lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding

Question 33

M’Naghten test

Answer 33

Under the M’Naghten test, a defendant is not guilty if, because of a defect or mental disease, the defendant did not know either the nature and quality of the act or the wrongfulness of the act

Question 34

constitutional bases for double jeopardy

Answer 34

The 5th Amendment protection against double jeopardy applies to the states through the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, and protects against multiple punishments for the same offense

Question 35

When does the blockburger test apply

Answer 35

If a defendant’s conduct may be prosecuted as two or more crimes, the blockburger test is applied to determine whether the crimes constitute the same offense for double jeopardy purposes

Question 36

Blockburger test

Answer 36

Under this test, each crime must require proof of an element the other does not in order for each to be considered a separate offense.

Question 37

What does the double jeopardy clause bar

Answer 37

The double jeopardy clause generally bars successive prosecutions for greater and lesser included offenses

Question 38

What is a lesser included offense

Answer 38

A lesser included offense is one that does not require proof of an element beyond those required by the greater offense

Question 39

Burden of proof on prosecution under DPC

Answer 39

The due process clause requires that the prosecution prove all of the elements of the case beyond a reasonable doubt

Question 40

mandatory presumptions in criminal cases

Answer 40

A mandatory presumption regarding an element of an offense violates due process requirements. This includes conclusive presumptions that cannot be rebutted, as well as rebuttable mandatory presumptions (which shift the burden of proof re: an element of an offense)

Question 41

Burden of proof with statutory sentencing enhancements

Answer 41

Any fact, other than a prior conviction, that can be used to increase a sentence beyond the statutorily prescribed maximum must be charged in an indictment, submitted to a jury, and established beyond a reasonable doubt.

A failure to abide by this procedure is a violation of a defendant’s due process rights under the 5th Amendment and 6th Amendment right to notice and a jury trial