Criminal Law Flashcards

Question

Define Recklessly

Answer 1

Consciously disregard of a foreseen substantial and unjustifiable risk

Answer 2

Should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk but fails to perceive it - Gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person

Answer 3

Purposely + Knowingly

Answer 4

* Must be adequate provocation * Killing must have been in a heat of passion -- At the moment of the homicide * Must have been a sudden heat of passion ---------AKA -No reasonable opportunity to cool off * Must have been a causal connection ------Between the provocation, the passion, and the fatal act

Answer 5

All crimes are general intent offenses unless: * The offense requires proof of intent to cause a particular result; OR * The offense requires proof of intent to commit some future act ^^^^Only in these two circumstances are crimes defined as specific intent crimes

Answer 6

First degree murder Inchoate crimes Theft Crimes * Burglary * Larceny * Possession/receipt of stolen property, with knowledge

Answer 7

Mistakes of fact, to be a defense to a specific intent crime, must merely be **honest**

Answer 8

Defendant must possess a desire, a specific purpose or conscious awareness (knowledge) to accomplish the prohibited result.

Answer 9

To be a defense to any other crime, a mistake must be **honest** and **reasonable**

Answer 10

Mistake is never a defense because there is no mens rea to negate

Answer 11

* The liquor laws * The pure food laws * Motor vehicle and traffic regulations sanitary, health laws for buildings/factories

Answer 12

If it's a result crime

Answer 13

The but-for test: Used when there is one defendant But for the defendant’s unlawful act, the harmful result would not have occurred Prohibited result would not have occurred when it did but for the defendant’s conduct

Answer 14

* A theory of actual causation * Defendant #2 causes an injury subsequent to a prior lethal injury caused by defendant #1 * Defendant #2 is but for cause under acceleration theory if: But for #2’s act, the victim would not have died when and as he did Defendant #2 hastens victim’s death and is then a but-for cause of death

Answer 15

Two or more defendants, acting **independently** and not in concert with each other, commit two separate acts, each of which alone is **sufficient** to bring about the prohibited result.

Answer 16

Two non-lethal injuries, combined, one aggravating the other, become lethal. Both defendants can be but-for causes of the prohibited result

Answer 17

Defendants act in concert - in a complicitous relationship, either as accomplices or co-conspirators, and both may be convicted of (whatever the charge is) * Need to share a mens rea, usually intent

Answer 18

Were the defendant’s actions a sufficiently direct cause of the harm to warrant criminal liability (MPC)?

Answer 19

* Direct cause * Reasonably foreseeable - no escape from liability

Answer 20

An act that occurs in reaction or response to defendant’s prior wrongful conduct * A responsive intervening cause will not relieve the initial wrongdoer of criminal responsibility unless the response was not only unforeseeable but also bizarre or highly abnormal

Answer 21

* Does not occur in response to the initial wrongdoer’s conduct even though defendant places the victim in a situation where the intervening cause could act independently upon him * Relieves the original wrongdoer of criminal responsibility unless the intervention was foreseeable

Answer 22

Ordinarily – will not break the causal chain that leads back to the defendant.

Answer 23

In criminal law, the "eggshell" victim is not an intervening situation that affects causation

Answer 24

Unless intentional or grossly incompetent, medical maltreatment does not break the chain of causation.

Answer 25

* Unforeseeable - Becomes a superseding intervening cause * Only superseding intervening acts break the chain and free the defendant from criminal culpability for the prohibited result

Answer 26

* An unlawful killing of a human being * Actus reus + result: Conduct that causes death

Answer 27

Malice Aforethought

Answer 28

Intentional - Express Malice * Intent to kill (Purposefully; knowingly) * Intent to cause serious bodily harm (Purposefully; knowingly) Reckless - Implied Malice * Depraved Heart (Reckless indifference to human life) Transferred Intent/ Reckless - Implied Malice * Intent to commit inherently dangerous felony

Answer 29

Second Degree Murder

Answer 30

* A deliberate and premeditated murder OR * More specifically, as a murder committed in a particular way (through the use of poison, lying in wait) OR * As an intentional killing committed during the perpetration of an intentional felony OR * Because there’s an aggravating factor

Answer 31

* Statutorily specified manner * Deliberate * Premeditated

Answer 32

To deliberate, to consider all aspects of a problem/ situation and determine a course of action - a “cool” purpose; deliberation takes time; cold-blooded killing - calm and careful reflection

Answer 33

A quantity of time is devoted to a person formulating a plan beforehand; “no time is too short for a wicked man to frame in his mind the scheme of murder.”

Answer 34

An intentional unlawful killing of another but under extreme emotional distress; provocation or heat of passion; imperfect self-defense (for an intentional killing)

Answer 35

Voluntary Manslaughter (with mens rea of intent)

Answer 36

* An act regarded as unduly dangerous to life or limb, committed with recklessness or gross negligence

Answer 37

Involuntary Manslaughter (with mens rea of recklessness)

Answer 38

Express Malice * Intent to Kill (Purposeful with knowledge) * Intent to cause serious bodily harm Implied Malice * Intent to commit a felony (enumerated or dangerous) * Depraved heart (reckless indifference to human life)

Answer 39

Either deliberate or purposeful, or an awareness that the death of another would result (i.e. knowledge to a substantial certainty – even without purpose) * Unless a heat of passion killing, engendered by adequate provocation, in which case the crime is manslaughter

Answer 40

(or knowledge that it could result) * Use of any lethal weapon infers intent

Answer 41

Strict liability for a homicide committed during the commission of a dangerous felony OR intent from dangerous felony is transferred to the killing

Answer 42

Conduct indicating a depraved mind or an abandoned and malignant heart – extreme recklessness regarding a homicidal risk

Answer 43

Test the defendant’s reaction to a provocation by the standard of the ordinary person “in the actor’s situation”

Answer 44

Whether the professed basis for the EED presents a reasonable explanation or excuse. Finder of fact must view “the subjective, internal situation in which the defendant finds himself and the external circumstances as he perceived them to be at the time, however inaccurate that perception may have been, and assess from that standpoint whether the explanation or excuse for his EED (not for the killing) was reasonable

Answer 45

* No specific act required to trigger the defense; Must prove only that homicide occurred as the result of EED for which there is reasonable explanation/excuse * Provocation need not involve a provocative act perpetrated by victim on defendant; defendant need only believe that victim was responsible for the affront, insult, provocation and, therefore, he struck out in rage * Even if victim provoked, provocation need not fall within a fixed category * Words alone can warrant a manslaughter instruction * No rigid cooling off rule

Answer 46

A person acts with criminal negligence with respect to a death when that person engages in: * Blameworthy conduct so serious that it creates a * Substantial and unjustifiable risk of another’s death that they * Fail to perceive that risk and * Failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation The seriousness would be apparent to anyone who shares the community’s general sense of right and wrong

Answer 47

One is guilty of murder if a death results from conduct during the commission or attempted commission of (or flight from) a dangerous felony - felony must be independent - must be an inherently dangerous felony - must prove causation: proximate cause theory (min) or agency theory (maj)

Answer 48

Must be an independent felony * Must be separate, collateral act from act the results in killing * Primary purpose of felony is not to cause serious physical injury or death

Answer 49

Must be an inherently dangerous felony * Does not have a primary objective of physical harm but serious injury is a consequential, secondary effect * BRAKER(s) felonies under the common law or enumerated in a penal code

Answer 50

Must comport with the timing requiring * Cause of death must occur during the attempt, commission or flight from felony * Cause of death must occur prior to the time accused reaches safe harbor

Answer 51

Must prove causation

Answer 52

Defendant sets into motion the chain of events that result in the death

Answer 53

The felon (or co-felon) must be the agent of the death; if non-felon causes death, then the death is not legally attributable to felon * Restrict liability for a killing to situations where the act of killing is directly attributable to the defendant or their co-felons * If the killing is done by a third party or by the victim, then the felony murder rule is inapplicable because causation is not satisfied in an “agency” jurisdiction

Answer 54

* **Transferred Intent**: Intent proved for underlying felony is transferred onto the killing * **Under MPC**, recklessness is the mens rea for a death that occurs during the underlying dangerous crime

Answer 55

* Defendant is not the one who committed the actus reus that caused the death of another; AND * No credible knowledge or no reasonable ground to believe that any other participant intended to engage in conduct likely to result in death or serious physical injury; AND * Defendant was not armed himself and had no reasonable ground to believe that any other participant was armed with such a weapon, instrument, article or substance

Answer 56

* Underlying crimes that are based upon an intent to cause physical injury (assault) – merge into the homicide unless they have an independent felonious purpose (burglarly) * Principal purpose of the underlying crime cannot be the felonious assault upon the person of the victim

Answer 57

Underlying felony must be inherently dangerous BRAKER felonis: * **B**urglarly * **R**ape * **A**rson * **K**idnaping * **E**scape * **R**obbery * **S**exual offense

Answer 58

The Agency Approach * Restricts liability for a killing to situations where the act of killing is directly attributable to the defendant or their co-felons. If the killing is done by a third party or by the victim, then the felony murder rule is inapplicable because causation is not satisfied in an “Agency” jurisdiction

Answer 59

Failure of Proof Defenses * Every element of the offense charged cannot be proven Justifications * Must be necessary & proportional Excuses * Admit that that conduct may be wrong, but excuse the actor because conditions suggest that he is not [fully] responsible for his action(s)

Answer 60

* Defendant always has the burden of going forward: the initial obligation to introduce evidence to support the matter at issue * Prosecutor has burden regarding elements of the crime (beyond a reasonable doubt) and of disproving a justification (beyond a reasonable doubt) produced by the defendant [self-defense; necessity defense; alibi; infancy] * Defense has burdens regarding production/persuasion for affirmative defenses (by a preponderance of the evidence) [duress; insanity; entrapment]

Answer 61

* Beyond reasonable doubt; preponderance of evidence * To convince fact-finder of the trust of the claim at issue

Answer 62

* Justification * Self-defense * Defense of Third Party * Necessity Defense * Defense of Habitation * Infancy * Prosecutor must disprove theses defenses beyond a reasonable doubt

Answer 63

* Duress * Entrapment * Renunciation * Mental disease or defect * Renunciation/ abandonment * Defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence

Answer 64

The general elements for a killing in self-defense (**for using lethal force**) are: An **honest and reasonable ** fear of death or great bodily harm * Must also be objectively reasonable* From an **imminent and unlawful threat ** (actual or apparent) * NECESSARY That is **proportional** to the threat; and Defendant was not the initial aggressor A small minority of jurisdictions also require a duty to retreat before using lethal force; but, most jurisdictions are “stand your ground**

Answer 65

Necessary (honest/reasonable fear + imminent); AND proportional * If necessary and proportionate, ACQUITTAL

Answer 66

Unreasonable belief regarding need to act; or initial aggressor * May result in mitigation

Answer 67

There is no self-defense (the use of force is not justifiable) if the defendant provoked the use of force in the same encounter; unless * 1. Defendant was a non-deadly aggressor; victim responded with deadly force; defendant then used deadly force; or * 2. Defendant clearly withdrew after his or her initial aggression but victim continued to attack

Answer 68

In a **minority** of jurisdictions and under the **MPC**: * No self-defense if: defendant was in a position from which he could retreat with complete safety. (Defendant must know he can retreat with complete safety.) * There is NO duty to retreat from one’s home or place of business * Even where there is a duty to retreat, it applies only before you may use deadly force

Answer 69

Totally subjective (MPC) * What the defendant believed Totally objective * What a reasonable person would have believed Hybrid (CL and NY Penal Law) * What a reasonable person in defendant’s circumstances or with defendant’s characteristics (including prior experiences) would reasonably believe

Answer 70

The use of deadly force is authorized **when necessary** to **prevent an uninvited entry** into a home if there are **reasonable and factual grounds** to believe that unless force were used a **felony** (in most jurisdictions, an atrocious or violent felony) would be committed within. Defense of habitation also justifies killing an **intruder who is lawfully within the home** and intends to reach its occupants and commit a felony against them * MAY extend to places outside the home * Defense allows one to kill to prevent an intruder’s forced entry - to exclude a trespasser or someone the homeowner believes is intending to trespass This defense does not extend to situations where: * Victim is fleeing from the home/defendant * Victim had lawfully entered the home

Answer 71

* The act charged must have been done to **prevent a significant evil**; and * There must have been **no adequate legal alternative**; ** * **The harm is imminent**; and ** The harm caused must **not have been disproportionate to the harm avoided**

Answer 72

* An **immediate** threat of death or serious bodily injury; or * A **well-grounded fear** that the threat will be carried out imminently (a fear such that an ordinary person would feel) * **No reasonable opportunity to escape** the threatened harm

Answer 73

* Defendant may not use duress if he put himself into the situation – clean hands * Defendant may not use duress as a defense to an intentional homicide (under common law. Under MPC, you can use it)

Answer 74

A person will be acquitted of any offense **except intentional murder** if the criminal act was committed under the following circumstances: * Another person threatened to kill or grievously harm the actor or a third party unless she committed the offense; * REASONABLENESS: The actor **reasonably believed** that the threat was genuine; * IIMMEDIACY: The threat was **present, imminent** and impending (not vague or speculative) at the time of the criminal act; * ESCAPABILITY: There was **no reasonable escape** from the threat except through compliance with the demands of the coercer; and * The actor had **clean hands** (i.e. was not at fault in exposing herself to the threat)

Answer 75

* Coerced; reasonable firmness in his situation would have been unable to resist; unclean hands * Note: No imminency requirement; No restriction of using defense in homicide cases Under MPC, duress may be a defense to any crime at all, including an intentional killing

Answer 76

Intoxication is never an excuse or justification for committing a crime, but it can serve as a **failure-of-proof defense **(and lead to a reduced offense) IF: * As a result of the intoxication, the actor either** lacked the capacity or failed to form the specific intent required to commit a specific-intent offense**; the intoxication negatives the requisite mens rea * Intoxication may NOT be raised as a defense to a crime involving recklessness or negligence

Answer 77

Coerced Intoxication * Intoxication involuntarily induced by reason of duress or coercion Pathological Intoxication * Intoxication grossly excessive in degree given the amount of intoxicant – actor does not know he is highly susceptible Intoxication by Innocent Mistake * Actor is mistaken about the nature of the substance being ingested (is tricked into taking a drug) If, as a result of the involuntary intoxication, the actor cannot form the requisite mens rea, he is entitled to acquittal. This applies to both specific and general intent crimes

Answer 78

* All defendants are presumed sane * Defendant must raise/prove insanity – affirmative defense

Answer 79

To prove insanity, defendant must demonstrate that at the time offense was committed: 1. He was suffering from a defect or disease of the mind; AND 2. He did not know * The nature and quality of his acts; OR * That his acts were legally or morally wrong (based upon society’s laws and moral norms)

Answer 80

With specific intent, a person * Encourages, solicits, incites, entices, advises, induces, urges, requests, commands or otherwise causes another person to engage in criminal conduct Intent Element * Solicitor must intend that the solicitee perform the criminal act * It is no defense that the person solicited refused to commit the crime, lacked capacity or withdrew Offense is complete at time of solicitation (of the encouragement or request), even if the target act is never completed No express agreement is required for the crime of solicitation

Answer 81

Intoxication or mistake of fact (honest; even unreasonable)

Answer 82

Conspirator may be convicted of both the offense of the conspiracy plus all substantive crimes committed by any other co-conspirators acting in furtherance of the conspiracy – if they are **foreseeable** (as a necessary or natural consequence of the unlawful agreement).

Answer 83

A conspiracy is formed (and completed) when there is: * An agreement * Between two or more persons (plurality) * With intent to accomplish an unlawful purpose;

Answer 84

Common law rule Plus the commission of an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy

Answer 85

Eliminates the plurality element and allows for unilateral conspiracy (one person may constitute a conspiracy when other person feigns agreement or cannot be a legal participant

Answer 86

* After the conspiracy is formed (subsequent to overt act in modern jurisdictions), no withdrawal available; but between agreement and overt act, liability avoided if the withdrawal is “**voluntary**” and the accused: * Communicates notice of intent not to participate to other co-conspirators OR * Informs police about agreement After an effective withdrawal, defendant limits his liability for substantive, subsequent crimes committed in furtherance of the conspiracy Withdrawal must be **voluntary**

Answer 87

Elements: (1) Specific intent (purpose) to bring about a criminal result PLUS (2) A substantial step in furtherance of that intent

Answer 88

Insanity defense when the defendant, as a result of a mental disease or defect, believes that “God” (or some voice) made him do it. * Defendant may know actions are unlawful and wrong but * Defendant believes God’s command overrides society’s dictates, both legally and morally Two Requirements for a successful defense: * Defendant must have a mental disease or defect AND * The jury must believe the defendant

Answer 89

* Lying in wait; searching for; following an intended victim * Unlawful entry into a place contemplated for the commission of the crime * Possession of materials specially designed for committing the crime * Possession of materials to be used in committing the crime * Soliciting an innocent agent to engage in criminal conduct

Answer 90

(Minority) Dangerous Proximity Doctrine: * The greater the gravity and probability of the offense, and the nearer the act to the crime, the stronger the argument that this element of attempt is satisfied

Answer 91

* Purposely does…anything which, under the circumstances as he believes them to be, is an act constituting a substantial step in a course of conduct planned to culminate in his commission of the crime

Answer 92

(Minority) More than a substantial step is required: an attempt does not occur until the defendant’s acts result in a dangerous proximity to completion of the crime

Answer 93

* Once defendant has taken a substantial step, no abandonment possible even with a change of heart. – because the crime of attempt has been completed. * Upon taking the substantial step, going from preparation to perpetration, attempt as a crime is completed. * No abandonment defense if based on desire to avoid detection, decision to delay commission of the crime until a more favorable time, or selection of another similar objective or victim (not considered “voluntary” – external to the individual and his possible remorse/repentance)

Answer 94

Elements: (1) Trespassory taking + (2) Carrying away + (3) Property of another (4) With the intent to permanently deprive

Answer 95

Elements: (1) Fraudulent (2) Conversion (3) Of property of another (4) By a person in lawful possession of the property

Answer 96

Elements: (1) Obtaining title (2) To property of another (3) Through reliance of that person (4) On known false misrepresentation of a material fact; and (5) Representation is made with intent to defraud

Answer 97

Larceny + Assault = Robbery

Answer 98

Breaking and entering, a building or structure, with intent to commit a crime therein

Answer 99

* Def intended to achieve end (crime) but fails to accomplish bc of a factual circumstance unknown or beyond her control * Had the facts been as the defendant believed them to be, he would have committed the crime * This type of impossibility is not a defense to attempt

Answer 100

* When the criminal law does not prohibit the conduct or result; the actor engages in conduct he believes is criminal but it's not prohibited by law * Full defense to any criminal liability

Answer 101

Principal: Person whose acts/omissions are the actus reus of the crime Principal must be actively or constructively present at the scene of a crime

Answer 102

With the requisite mens rea, he aids or abets (the actus reus) a principal prior to or during the commission of the crime – but doesn’t commit the actus reus of the crime itself * Derives liability because he engages in some type of action * Accomplice’s actus reus = the assistance * Accomplice’s mens rea = his intent to promote or facilitate the commission of the crime

Answer 103

Elements: 1. With the intent to aid, encourage, promote, consulate 2. Acts to assist, aid, encourage, promote, counsel 3. Another person 4. To commit a crime

Answer 104

An accomplice is guilty of the substantive crime he assisted or encouraged if the principal carries out that crime; but he won’t be guilty if the principal carries out a different crime UNLESS: * The crime is the natural and probable consequence (FORESEEABLE) of the intended crime that the accomplice wanted to assist

Answer 105

* Getaway driver (even if at a distance, is constructively present) * Look-outs * Onlookers who act to encourage street fights – applauding insufficient to establish accomplice liability * Helped plan the crime, acquired the tools or weapons necessary to commit the crime (absent from the scene but has the requisite intent and aided - leads to full accomplice liability) Must have knowledge of what the tools, weapons, poisons are going to be used for

Answer 106

Person who assists or aids an accused in avoiding apprehension or conviction after the commission of the crime * Must know that a crime was committed * Must act specifically to aid or assist the accused * Must give the aid or assistance for the purpose of helping the accused avoid apprehension or conviction Accessory after the fact is not liable for the crime itself (as an accomplice would be) Accessory has committed a distinct crime based upon obstruction of justice (or hindrance of prosecution) * His liability for this separate crime is not dependent on the punishment for the underlying crime

Answer 107

To avoid liability, the accomplice must: * Repudiate prior aid; give no further aid – ALL PRIOR TO COMPLETION OF ELEMENTS REQUIRED FOR CRIME * Communicate withdrawal to others * Do everything possible to countermand/neutralize his prior assistance; and * Do so before the chain of events is in motion and is unstoppable * Change of heart due to external circumstances, flight from scene, arrest by law enforcement, or an uncommunicated decision to withdraw --- all ineffective

Answer 108

The trespassory taking (taking without consent) and carrying away the property of another with the intent to permanently deprive by way of deceit and false representations.

Answer 109

It has the same requirements as self-defense but instead of defending yourself, you're defending a third party; YOU may exercise lethal force in order to protect your friend or a stranger who is being attacked with lethal force. BUT you must be able to satisfy the same requirements as for self-defense, so the threat must be imminent, you must have a reasonable belief that your life is in danger, your response must be proportional, etc. etc.

Answer 110

Failure to act, when there’s a legal duty to act, results in or accelerates a death

Answer 111

Conspiracy does not merge with the target crime

Answer 112

1) Solicitation occurs at the very beginning (the lesser degree) * If the solicitation is actually accepted, then it becomes a conspiracy - the solicitation disappears and merges into conspiracy (or it can merge into the underlying crime if there is no conspiracy) 2) Conspiracy - An agreement to commit an unlawful act * Conspiracy DOES NOT MERGE; it is a separate crime by itself 3) Attempt 4) Substantive crime

Criminal Law Flashcards

(138 cards)