Criminal Law Flashcards
(32 cards)
JX
Sts can only punish crimes w/ some connection to the st:
1) A crime that occurs in whole or in part inside the state;
2) Conduct outside the state that involved an attempt to commit a crime inside the state (e.g. fraud);
3) A conspiracy to commit a crime if an overt act occurred w/in the st.
Actus Reus
Must be some physical act in the world–the act can include speech.
Act must be voluntary–i.e. willed by D
Failure to act can be suff actus reus–e.g. failure to comply w/ statutory duty; contract; special rel b/t D and V; vol assuming a duty of care that is cast side; or D causes a danger/peril and fails to mitigate harm to V.
Mens Rea–CL States of Mind
Specific Intent
Specific Intent–D committed AR for very purpose of causing the result.
4 categories of specific intent crimes under CL:
1) 1st degree Murder;
2) Inchoate crimes–i.e. conspiracy, attempt, and solicitation;
3) Assault w/ attempt to commit battery; and
4) Theft offenses–e.g. larceny/embezzlement/burglary/robbery
Mens Rea–CL States of Mind
Malice
D acts in reckless disregard of a high degree of harm; realizes the risk and acts anyway.
Only 2 malice crimes: Arson and Murder
Arson–malicious (i.e. intentional or reckless) burning of another’s dwelling; mere scorching of the walls, smoke damage, and burning of dwelling’s contents NOT arson–e.g. D only burning former lover’s bed not arson.
Mens Rea–CL States of Mind
General Intent
Catchall category–reqs intent to perform an act that is unlawful; knowledge that act is unlawful NOT req–suff to intend to perform act.
MPC–acts done knowingly, recklessly or negligently are general-intent crimes.
E.g. battery and manslaughter
Mens Rea–CL States of Mind
Strict Liability
No state of mind req–D must merely have committed the act w/ req actus reus.
i.e. statutory/reg offenses; drug poss; moral offenses–e.g. sex w/ a minor.
Mistake of Fact never a defense to strict liability crime.
Only defenses–invol act
Mens Rea: MPC States of Mind
1) Purpose–highest level of culpability; D’s conscious objective is to engage in conduct or to cause a certain result.
2) Knowledge–D is aware that her conduct is of the nature req to commit the crime and the result is practically to occur from this conduct–i.e. “willfully.”
3) Recklessness–D acts w/ a conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of conduct of a law-abiding person.
4) Negligence–lowest level of culpability; D should be aware of a sub risk and acts in a way that grossly deviates from the SOC of a reasonable person in the same situation.
Transferred Intent Doctrine
When a D has the requisite mens rea for committing a crime against Victim A, but actually commits the crime against Victim B, the law transfers the intent from A to B.
Does NOT apply to attempted crimes–only completed.
Merger
D cannot be convicted of 2 crimes when those 2 crimes merge into one:
1) Lesser-included offenses–e.g. D’s conduct satisfies elements for both larceny and robbery, but larceny is a lesser-included offense of robbery so D would be convicted of robbery as the greater-included offense; if 2 sep Vs then the crimes against each V do NOT merge;
*Larceny, assault and battery ALL merge into robbery.
2) Inchoate and Completed Offenses–D who completes crime cannot also be convicted of Attempt (merges); crime committed as a result of Solicitation then D liable for that crime, NOT solicitation (merges); BUT conspiracy and a completed offense do NOT merge.
Principals and Accomplices
Principals–Ds whose acts or omissions form the AR of the crime.
Accomplices–same degree of responsibility as the principal; ppl who assist the principal and act w/ the intent of assisting the principal to commit the crime (MPC act w/ the purpose facilitating commission of offense and intend her acts to assist crim conduct); liable for BOTH the planned crime and any other foreseeable crimes that occur in the course of crim act–e.g. robbery and attempted murder; accomplice’s intend to aid principal can be inferred when the accomplice:
1) provides highly specialized goods/services;
2) receives unusually large profits from a sale; or
3) has some greater interest in the crime’s success.
Accomplices may also be guilty of sep crime of conspiracy if there was an agreement to commit the crime and an overt act taken in furtherance.
A P who is a member of the class protected by a statute cannot be an accomplice–e.g. a 13-year-old girl would not be considered an accomplice to statutory rape.
If the statute only imposes liability on one P–e.g. a crime to accept bribes–then the P offering the bribe cannot be liable–ONLY the P accepting the bribe.
Criminal Facilitation–if accomplice did not act w/ req intent–neverthless may be guilty of this lesser offense for simply assisting.
Accessories after the Fact
Ppl who assist D AFTER the crime has been committed–e.g. obstruction of justice or harboring a fugitive.
Negating Mens Rea–Mistakes of Law
Ignorance of the law is NO excuse.
Exceptions:
1) Reliance on high-level gov interp;
2) Lack of notice; or
3) Mistake of law that goes to an element of specific intent.
Negating Mens Rea–Mistakes of Fact
When a D is factually mistaken.
Strict Liability–mistake of fact NEVER a defense.
Gen Intent and Malice–MOF a defense only if reasonable and goes to crim intent—-e.g. D pointed gun and shot V after V told him the gun was a stage prop that could only fire blanks.
Specific Intent–MOF a defense whether the mistake is reasonable OR unreasonable.
Contrast w/ Factual Impossibility–e.g D points a gun at V which he mistakenly believes to be loaded and pulls the trigger, intending to kill V–D can be guilty of attempted murder b/c still had the req intent, so does NOT negate the mens rea.
Negating Mens Rea–Insanity
M’Naghten Test–D either did not know the nature of the act or did not know that the act was wrong b/c of a mental disease or defect (e.g. being a sociopath is NOT enough to constitute insanity).
MPC–due to a mental disease or defect, D did not have sub capacity to appreciate the
wrongfulness of his actions or to conform his conduct to the law.
Durham Rule–“but-for” test for insanity; i.e. that an accused is not criminally responsible if his unlawful act was the product of mental disease or mental defect
Negating Mens Rea–Intoxication
Invol–valid D to all crimes when it negates the mens rea nec for the crime.
Vol–a D ONLY to specific-intent crimes and only if it prevented D from forming the mens rea–i.e. NOT a valid D if D got drunk to work up the courage to commit the crime.
MPC–vol intoxication only a D to crimes for which a material element reqs purpose or knowledge and the intoxication prevents the formation of that mental state.
Inchoate Crimes–Conspiracy
CL–1) an agreement; 2) b/t 2 or more ppl; 3) to commit an unlawful act.
Modern Law/MPC–adds a 4th element: The performance of an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy (not req if conspiracy is a felony).
MPC–also reqs that ONLY the D actually agree–e.g. can be a “pretend” agreement w/ undercover cop, still counts as conspiracy under MPC.
Agreement can be explicit OR implicit; purpose of conspiracy needs to be unlawful but overt act under MPC does not need to be unlawful–as long as it furthers conspiracy then counts.
Scope of conspiracy:
1) Chain Conspiracy–each participant liable for substantive crimes of Co-Cs;
2) Spoke-Hub Conspiracy–participants NOT liable for substantive crimes of co-Cs b/c each “spoke” is sep agreement.
Withdrawal:
CL–impossible to withdraw b/c crime committed moment agreement made; BUT D can limit liability for substantive crimes by informing other Cs or informing legal authorities.
MPC–C can withdraw prior to commission of any overt act by comm intention to withdraw to other co-Cs or law enforcement; after overt act C can withdraw only by helping to thwart success of conspiracy.
Inchoate Crimes–Attempt
Reqs:
1) specific intent to commit crim act; and
2) sub step towards perpetrating crime.
Defenses–for specific-intent crimes can be used as defense to attempt–e.g. vol intox and unreasonable MOF.
Legal impossibility ALWAYS a defense to attempt–e.g. statute says burning one’s own building NOT arson.
NOT defenses to attempt:
–Factual Impossibility; and
–Entrapment–only an affirmative D if agents induced D to commit an offense that D otherwise would have been unwilling to commit.
Inchoate Crimes–Solicitation
Indv intentionally invites, requests, or commands another person to commit a crime; once person agrees the crime is conspiracy.
First Degree Murder
Specific-intent crime; a deliberate and premeditated murder OR a killing that results during the commission of an inherently dangerous felony (i.e. felony murder).
Common-Law Murder
i.e. Second Degree Murder–Unlawful killing of another human being committed w/ malice aforethought.
4 kinds of malice:
1) Intent to kill–need not be premeditated but formed in the moment before killing;
2) Intent to inflict serious bodily harm;
3) Abandoned or malignant/depraved heart–i.e. a cavalier disregard for human life; and
4) Felony Murder–the death occurred during commission or attempted commission of dangerous felony (e.g. burglary/arson/robbery); dangerous felony must be indp of killing itself; can involve someone who resists felony or when a bystander is killed by
D/D’s agent during felony (Maj JX–D would NOT be liable for POLICE/VICTIM shooting at D but missing and hitting bystander/D’s co-felon).
*Remember Merger: underlying felony merges into felony murder–e.g. D would not be convicted of robbery AND felony murder, but felony murder alone.
*When evaluating felony murder–analyze 1) foreseeability; 2) intent to kill; and 3) prox cause.
–Consent is NEVER a defense to murder–i.e. a person who commits a mercy killing (e.g. assisted suicide) can still be prosc for murder.
Manslaughter
Vol–D intended to kill V but acted in “heat of passion” or “under extreme emotional disturbance” so less blameworthy than murder; Test–is the situation one in which most ppl would act w/o thinking and w/o time to cool off?
Invol–criminally neg killing (e.g. traffic deaths) or killing of someone while committing a crime other than those covered by felony murder (e.g. misdemeanor manslaughter).
Property Crimes–Larceny
1) Trespassory
2) Taking and carrying away;
3) The personal property of another;
4) w/ intent to deprive the owner/possessor of that prop permanently
E.g. intending to “borrow” but return is NOT larceny.
E.g. D taking purse from its original location in store and concealing it w/ intent to steal is still larceny even if she places the purse near counter before leaving–larceny punishes the taking of prop w/ the intent to steal even if D does not travel very far w/ it.
Property Crimes–Embezzlement
1) Fraudulent;
2) Conversion of prop of another;
3) By a person in lawful poss of that prop
Key diff from larceny–is that in embezzlement D guilty of keeping prop that was entrusted to him.
Property Crimes–False Pretenses (Variation of Larceny)
D obtains TITLE (vs. mere POSS like larceny by trick) to someone else’s prop through the use of false statements of past or existing fact w/ intent to defraud.
E.g. paying for goods w/ counterfeit $
