Criminal Law Flashcards
(86 cards)
1
Q
Actus Reus
A
Prosecution must prove brd Defendant engaged in one or more specific acts VOLUNTARILY
2
Q
Actus Reus Omission
A
Prosecution must prove (1): ▲ had duty imposed by law to act; and (2): ▲ had the ability to act
3
Q
Purpose/Intent
A
Requires A defendant to have the conscious object of engaging in certain conduct or causing a certain result
4
Q
Specific Intent
A
defendant specifically intended a certain result from the act or omission
5
Q
General Intent
A
defendant intended to do a certain act or omission but didn’t specifically intend the result
6
Q
Knowledge/Actual Knowledge Required (Some Jds)
A
A person acts knowingly if (1): he is aware that his conduct is of a particular nature or (2): will cause a certain result.
7
Q
Knowledge/Willful Blindness Standard (Majority of States)
A
A person is deemed to act knowingly when he is: (1): Aware that certain facts are highly probable; OR (2): Intentionally ignorant to certain facts.
*Knowledge may be proved by circumstantial evidence
8
Q
Recklessness
A
defendant (1): consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk thatt an element of the crime exists or will result from her conduct; and (2): the person’s disregard of the risk constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding person would observe in the situation.
9
Q
Negligently
A
A person acts negligently if he (1): should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that
an element of the crime exists or will result from his conduct; and (2): the person’s failure to
perceive the risk constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable
person would observe in the situation. [Model Penal Code § 2.02(
10
Q
concurrence of act and intent
A
The defendant must have the necessary mens rea at the time of the actus reus.
11
Q
transferred intent
A
alternate victims only. The doctrine of transferred intent imposes criminal liability on a defendant who intends to
harm one person but actually harms an unintended victim. In criminal law, unlike tort law,
intent transfers only to alternative victims of the intended crime. Transferred intent does not
convert the intent to commit one crime into the intent to commit a different crime. A notable
exception is the felony-murder rule.
12
Q
Causation
A
When causation is an element, the prosecution must prove that the defendants act or omission was the actual and proximate cause of the unlawful event.
13
Q
Actual Cause
A
But for
If ▲’s wrongful act combines with some other cause, it’s still an actual cause because it accellerated the death process.
14
Q
Proximate Cause
A
The result was the natural and foreseeable probable consequence of the defendants act or omission
15
Q
Dependent Intervening Cause
A
one that is a consequence of Defendant’s prior wrongful conduct
breaks the chain of causation from the original act to the death only if the intervening force was “so out-of-the-ordinary that it is no longer fair to hold [the defendant] criminally responsible for the outcome.”
16
Q
Burdens with respect to defenses seeking to negate an element
A
The burden of production to show some evidence negating the required element is on the defendant.
The burden of persuasion to prove the element remains as always on the prosecution.
17
Q
Mistake of Fact (negating element of offense)
A
All jurisdictions generally relieve a criminal defendant of criminal liability when, (1): as the result of a reasonable mistake of fact, (2): the defendant didn’t have the culpable mental state required for the Commission of the offense.
18
Q
Mistake of law (negating element)
A
- Generally, mistake of law it’s not a defense.
- Exceptions:
a. Certain offenses include a mens rea element that defendant must have known about the illegal nature of the act or omission.
b. Mistake of law is a valid defense, if at the time of the alleged offence, the defendant argues that he had relied on an official interpretation of the law which was wrong.
i. Court’s ruling
ii. Da interpretation
19
Q
Legal Impossibility (negating element)
A
Defendant engages in act believing it’s illegal but it’s clearly not
Valid defense for attempt
20
Q
Factual Impossibility (negating element)
A
- defendant intends to commit crime but factual circumstances outside his control prevent the crime.
a. Shooting a person who is already dead
stealing from an empty house
shooting someone with an unloaded gun
b. NOT USUALLY A DEFENSE TO ATTEMPT.
21
Q
Inherent Impossibility (negating element)
A
- someone (1): intends to commit crime and (2): believes act will cause intended harm but (3): it’s inherently impossible for act to have intended effect
- voodoo doll
- recommends dismissal of charges in rare case that inherent impossibility unquestionably exists.
22
Q
Voluntary Intoxication
A
not applicable to recklessness under the MPC
not applicable when ▲ became voluntarily intoxicated to commit the crime.
not applicable when intoxication is an element of the crime.
23
Q
Involuntary Intoxication (negating mens rea)
A
i. someone tricked or coerced defendant into taking substance, or
ii. defendant had an unforeseeable reaction to prescribed medication.
24
Q
Diminished Capacity (negating mens rea)
A
because of some mental disorder
or condition, the defendant was unable to form a mens rea of specific intent or some higher level mental state required to commit a crime
Defendant may still be convicted of general intent offense such as second degree murder or voluntary manslaughter.
25
Affirmative Defenses Burden of Persuasion
i. some jurisdictions place the burden of persuasion on the defendant, usually by a preponderance of the evidence.
ii. Some jurisdictions hold that once the defendant meets the initial burden of production, the burden of persuasion is on the prosecution to disprove affirmative defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
1. (It does not violate due process to place both the burden of production and the burden of persuasion on the defendant concerning affirmative defenses.)
26
Insanity (M'Naghten) (Majority)
1. Majority of jds, including federal system
2. Under this test, a defendant is insane if:
a. because of a mental disease or defect, he
b. (i): doesn't know the nature or quality of his criminal act; or (ii): doesn’t know what he is doing is wrong.
i. (Some jurisdictions only ask whether the defendant knew if what he was doing was wrong.)
27
Irresistable Impulse (Minority)
2. under this test, a defendant is insane if,
a. because of a mental disease or defect;
b. he can't resist the impulse to commit the crime (even if he knows right from wrong).
3. (All jurisdictions that use this test also use some version of the M’Naughten test alternatively.)
28
MPC (Insanity)
a. because of a mental disease or defect (DOES NOT INCLUDE VOLUNTARY INTOXICATION OR ANTISOCIAL PERSONALITY DISORDER IN MAJORITY OF JDS), the defendant lacks the substantial capacity to
i. appreciate the wrongfulness of his actions or
ii. to conform his conduct to the law
29
Necessity
ii. Necessity operates as a defense for criminal conduct if:
1. The defendant committed the crime to avoid imminent substantial harm;
2. There was no reasonable alternative to committing the crime; And
3. harm defendant caused was less serious than the harm avoided.
iii. (Generally unavailable if defendants negligence or fault created harm to be avoided.)
30
Self Defense/defense of others/property (non-deadly)
ii. a defendant is entitled to use non deadly force when
1. defendant reasonably believes
a. that he or someone else is in imminent danger of being harmed (or that defendant’s property is being taken); and
i. CAN INCLUDE ANOTHER’S SELF-HARM
b. the force used is proportional to the harm threatened.
31
Deadly force
1. defendant kills based on a reasonable belief
a. that he or someone else was in imminent danger of being killed or suffering great bodily injury; and
b. The use of deadly force was necessary.
32
Duty to Retreat
only in cases of deadly force
Most jurisdictions impose a duty to retreat if one has a reasonable means of escape in order to avoid the use of deadly force in self-defense in some circumstances
33
Castle Doctrine
1. A person needn't retreat when threatened in one's own residence, place of employment or car.
34
Stand your ground laws
3. A substantial minority of states have enacted broad stand your ground laws which don't require retreat from deadly force even if it's safe to do so.
35
Exceptions to self defense Initial Aggressor
1. Generally, a defendant who is the initial aggressor may not invoke self-defense to justify the defendants use of force against another person who responded with lawful force to the defendants initial aggression unless .
36
Exception to Self defense Initial Provacateur
2. Also, a defendant who, without using force, provoked another into threatening force against the defendant has a duty to retreat before using force in response to the provoked person.
37
Duress
i. duress is an affirmative defense that applies if:
1. defendant engages in criminal act
2. based on an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm to himself or another; and
3. Reasonably believes that committing the act is necessary to avoid such harm
Not a defense to intentional homicide
38
Duress (Reasonable belief in necessity of committing the act)
a. (must have no reasonable alternative—such as calling police)
b. (defendant must not unreasonably place himself in the position of being subject to duress)
39
Entrapment
i. entrapment provides a defense when a government agent (1): induces the defendant into committing a crime (2): he wouldn't have otherwise committed
ii. proving no predisposition
1. In a majority of jurisdictions, the defendant must prove he wasn't subjectively predisposed to commit the offence before the government agents inducement.
40
Common Law 2nd Degree Murder
The killing of another with malice aforethought
41
Malice Aforethought
a. Intent to kill or cause serious bodily injury; or
b. Knowledge that death or grievous bodily harm is likely; or
c. Intent to commit a felony other than murder
d. Acted with a depraved heart
42
Depraved heart
i. Extreme recklessness evidencing an indifference to the value of human life
ii. Another formulation
1. At common law, depraved-heart murder will be found if the defendant caused the death of another by acting (1): with reckless indifference to the value of human life (2): in a manner that creates a very high risk of death or serious injury
43
Murder MPC
a. DOES NOT DISTINGUISH BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND DEGREE MURDER
b. Murder defined as unlawful homicide committed purposely, knowingly, or recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life.
44
felony murder
a. A defendant is guilty of felony murder if
i. (1): he commits, attempts or is an accomplice to specified felonies; and
(2): another person is killed during or in furtherance of the Commission or attempted Commission of that felony.
45
Specified predicate felonies for felony murder
1. Usually only felonies involving actual or potential force
a. Most Jds
i. Robbery
ii. Sexual assault
iii. Kidnapping
iv. Burglary
v. Arson
b. Some jds
i. Any felony that’s inherently dangerous to human life
46
Felony murder (reasonable foreseeability)
c. Many jurisdictions require the victim's death to have been reasonably foreseeable from an objective standpoint.
d. A defendant, Co defendant, or innocent third party can commit the killing so long as it was reasonably foreseeable.
47
MPC (NO felony murder)
presumes recklessness and extreme indifference if death resulted while defendant or accomplice committed or attempted robbery, rape, forcible deviant sexual intercourse, arson, burglary, kidnapping, or felonious escape.
i. Presumption is rebuttable
48
voluntary manslaughter
i. An intentional killing that (1): occurs during a sudden and intense emotional state (heat of passion) (2): without time to cool off and (3): AS A RESULT OF AN ADEQUATE PROVOCATION
1. Provocation must:
a. Have subjectively motivated the defendant
b. and Arouse uncontrollable passion in a reasonable person
c. (another person’s words alone not enough)
d. Physical acts plus words
49
Involuntary manslaughter (2 kinds)
i. defendant engages in reckless (grossly negligent) conduct that kills another person.
1. (different than normal recklessness)
2. Reckless in this context means that the defendant had subjective knowledge of a high probability of at least serious bodily injury resulting from his intentional acts
ii. the defendant causes the death of another in the course of committing or attempting to commit predicate offenses (felonies, certain misdemeanors that are not inherently dangerous to human life.)
1. THEFT.
2. MISDEMEANOR RECKLESS DRIVING
3. The Commission of the non dangerous felony or misdemeanor must have been the proximate cause of the victim's death.
50
negligent homicide
a. some states
i. enacted negligent homicide offense or incorporated it into involuntary manslaughter statute (often as a second degree version of that offense).
b. Other states
i. Limit nh to negligent killing resulting from operation of motor vehicle
c. Criminal negligence
i. Person should be, but isn't, aware of substantial and unjustifiable risk that exists or will result; gross deviation from standard of care that a reasonable person would use
51
larceny (common law)
(1): trespassory taking and carrying away of personal property in another 's possession (2): without their consent and with (3): intent to steal and permanently deprive the person of the property.
52
larceny (found property)
A person who comes into control of property of another that she knows to have been lost, mislaid, or delivered under a mistake as to the nature or amount of the property or the identity of the recipient is guilty of larceny if (1): with purpose to deprive the owner thereof, (2): she fails to take reasonable measures to restore the property to a person entitled to have it..
53
Exceptions to larceny and larceny (found property)
1. NOT LARCENY IF FINDER HAS NO REASON TO BELIEVE OWNER CAN BE LOCATED.
3. AT COMMON LAW, the intent requirement is not met if the defendant has an honest but false belief that the property is his
54
continuing trespass doctrine
i. a trespass in the taking of goods, although without intent to appropriate them, followed by an appropriation, the original trespass being deemed to continue to the time of the appropriation, so that the subsequent appropriation is larceny.
55
larceny by trick
a. person (1): makes falsehood or misrepresentation to property owner (2): to gain possession of property (3): with intent to permanently deprive owner of it.
56
Embezzlement
a. embezzlement is (1): the fraudulent conversion of another's property (2): by a person who then lawfully possesses the property
57
False Pretenses
a. Person
i. (1): obtains title to property belonging to another
1. Apparently money counts???
ii. (2): through knowing misrepresentation of material fact
1. The false representation must be one of fact, not opinion.
a. Commercial puffery is not generally considered false pretenses.
2. As long as the false representation contributes to the victim parting with his property, causation is satisfied.
iii. (3): with intent to defraud/obtain illegally.
1. a defendant has the intent to defraud required to establish false pretenses when the defendant intends that the person to whom the false representation is made will rely upon it.
58
receipt of stolen property
a. person (1): received stolen property (2): knew it was stolen at the moment of receiving it; and (3): intended to permanently deprive the owner of the property
59
constructive possession (of stolen property)
1. directing or controlling the disposition of stolen property.
60
Robbery
1. Robbery is (1): the trespassory taking and carrying away of another person's property with (2): intent to permanently deprive the person of that property; (3): in the presence of another; and (4): through PURPOSEFUL force or intimidation.
61
Robbery (force or intimidation after the taking)
c. THE FORCE OR INTIMIDATION ELEMENT IS SATISFIED EVEN IF THE DEFENDANT USES FORCE OR INTIMIDATION AFTER THE TRESPASSORY TAKING, SO LONG AS
i. IT’S USED TO RETAIN THE PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE TAKING.
62
lesser included offense
an offense with all elements completely subsumed within elements of a greater offense.
a. A person may not be convicted of both a greater and lesser included offense.
b. Upon request, a court should give a lesser included offense instruction if, on the evidence presented, the jury could rationally acquit the defendant of the charged offense but convict of the lesser offense. Here, the element of value is in reasonable dispute
63
Burglary (traditional)
(1): unlawful breaking and entering (2): of another person’s dwelling (3): at night (4): with intent to commit a felony.
64
Burglary (today)
a. Today, burglary requires (1): unprivileged entry; (2): of any structure; (3): at any time; (4): with intent to commit a crime once inside
65
Remaining (Unprivileged entry Burglary)
i. In a majority of jurisdictions, an initially-privileged entrant may satisfy the unprivileged entry requirement if he remains inside the structure at a time he is not privileged to be there.
66
Battery (Some JDs)
i. Battery is (1): nonconsensual (2): intentional physical contact with another person (3): causing bodily injury.
1. Spitting would fail the third element.
67
Battery (Other JDs)
i. Battery is (1): nonconsensual (2): intentional physical contact with another person that (3): is offensive or causes bodily injury.
68
Assault
a. Assault is (1): an attempted battery or (2): a threatened battery.
i. To commit a threatened battery, the defendant must (1): specifically intend (2): to place another person in reasonable apprehension of imminent battery
69
common law kidnapping (modern unlawful restraint or false imprisonment)
a person was guilty of kidnapping if they (1): intentionally; (2): non consensually; and (3): unlawfully (4): took and moved (even for a short distance) or confined another person.
70
MPC Kidnapping
all common law elements plus holding victim for unlawful purpose including
1. Ransom or hostage
2. Facilitated commission of any felony or flight thereafter
a. Such as robbery
3. Inflicted bodily injury on or terrorized victim or another
4. Disrupt government functions
71
Arson
(1): malicious (2): burning of another person's dwelling.
72
Possession
The (1): unlawful possession of an item with (2): knowledge of the possession; and (3): knowledge of what the item is
73
Constructive Possession
i. Defendant, although not actually in possession, knows that he has the right to exercise dominion and control over the item located somewhere else but doesn't relinquish the right.
74
Accomplice liability
2. The accomplice (1): intentionally aids, abets or facilitates through encouragement or assistance the commission of a crime (2): before, during, or in principles flight from committing offense; (3): with intent that the crime is committed
75
Accomplice Liability for additional crimes committed during primary offense
d. Accomplices are also criminally liable for any additional crime committed by a principal during the offense if the crime was both:
i. The natural and probable consequence of the primary crime; And
ii. committed in furtherance of primary crime.
76
Accessory After the Fact
b. A person is guilty of being an accessory after the fact if (1): after the crime has been committed; (2): he offers assistance to the principal (3): with the intent to keep the principal from being detected or apprehended.
i. Punished less severely than regular accomplice.
77
Attempt
In general, an attempt occurs if (1) the defendant, with the specific intent to commit a target offense, (2) engages in a substantial step in furtherance of the target offense that (3) does not result in
its completion.
78
Mens rea for attempt
A defendant must have the specific intent to commit the target offense. Attempt is impossible where the target offense requires recklessness or negligence.
79
Attempt (Dangerous Proximity test)
i. Looks at the physical and temporal proximity of the defendants acts in relation to the target offense.
1. Criminal liability for attempt arises if the defendant came dangerously close to committing the target offense
80
Abandonment (Defense to Attempt)
i. can serve as a defense to attempt only wear a defendant completely and voluntarily abandoned the attempt before consummating the target offense, not because of perceived intervention of law enforcement.
81
substantial step (attempt)
a. Searching for or following the contemplated victim
b. reconnoitering the place contemplated for the Commission of the target crime
c. possessing materials or instrumentalities to be employed
d. solicitation plus payment
82
Solicitation
a. A person is liable for solicitation if (1): defendant requested another person to commit an offense or aid and abet the defendant; and (2): defendant intended that the offense actually be committed.
83
Conspiracy
2. Conspiracy requires (1): an agreement between 2 or more people to commit a crime; and (2): at least one person commits an overt act in furtherance of the conspiratorial plan.
84
conspiracy defense withdrawal
6. To withdraw from a conspiracy, a conspirator must:
a. explicitly notify all other members of the conspiracy of withdrawal, or
b. engage in some affirmative act effectively communicating unequivocal withdrawal.
C. WITHDRAWAL DOES NOT CUT OFF LIABILITY FOR CONSPIRACY. IT ONLY CUTS OFF LIABILITY FOR CRIMES COMMITTED IN FURTHERANCE OF CONSPIRACY PROVIDED THOSE CRIMES ARE COMMITTED AFTER WITHDRAWAL.
85
conspiracy liability for completed offenses
5. Any member of a conspiracy is guilty of any crime committed in furtherance of it if the crime is reasonably foreseeable.
86
Renunciation (Conspiracy Defense)
provides a complete defense to conspiracy
a. Renunciation requires the conspirator to thwart the conspiracies success before the target offense occurs, typically by alerting law enforcement.
