Criminal Law Flashcards

Question

Larceny

Answer 1

Taking of personal property of another from their person or presence with intent to permanently deprive them of it

Answer 2

Fraudulent conversion of personal property of another by one who has lawful possession of it

Answer 3

Obtaining title to personal property of another by intentional false statement of PAST or EXISTING fact with intent to defraud the other

Answer 4

1. give up possession / custody by trickery 2. give up title by trickery

Answer 5

Obtaining property by means of threat to do (incl future) harm / expose information

Answer 6

Breaking and entering a dwelling place of another at night with intent to commit a felony therein

Answer 7

Malicious burning of dwelling of another

Answer 8

Unlawful application of force on person of another resulting in harmful or offensive touching General intent crime

Answer 9

When battery against woman, child, or police officer

Answer 10

Attempt to commit battery or Intentional creation of reasonable apprehension of imminent bodily harm in the victim's mind

Answer 11

Assault when (1) also use of deadly weapon (2) with intent to commit rape, main, or murder

Answer 12

Unlawful carnal knowledge of one by another without effective consent

Answer 13

Unlawful confinement of a person without valid consent

Answer 14

Unlawful confinement of person with (1) some movement of the victim, or (2) concealment of victim.

Answer 15

Must participate in the offense with the required intent - either encouraging or assisting the principal (mere presence not enough) Dual intent Required: (1) intent to assist the principal in commission of crime (2) intent that the principal commit the substantive offense Conviction of principal NOT required

Answer 16

Principals in first degree : who actually engage in the conduct that constitutes the offense OR who caused an innocent agent to do so Principals in the second degree: who aided, advised, or encouraged the principals and were present at time of crime (just presence not enough but presence pursuant to an agreement to assist is good enough) Accessories Before the fact: who assisted or encouraged but were NOT present at crime Accessories After the fact: who with knowledge that a principal committed a felony, assisted them to escape arrest / punishment

Answer 17

Accomplices also liable for crimes they did not counsel and other crimes committed in the commission of the main crime to the extent contemplated with the principal - if foreseeable / probable EXCEPT : members of a protected class per statute

Answer 18

Before the crime becomes unstoppable If encouraged - they must repudiate (withdraw support) If aided - must attempt to neutralize the assistance (e.g., retrieve) Notifying police / preventive action is sufficient Just withdrawal w/o action is NOT sufficient

Answer 19

No need for principals conviction But a crime must've occurred

Answer 20

Attempt to commit a crime with intent to commit the crime that falls short of completion Requires Specific intent And overt act (more than just preparation) in furtherance of the crime

Answer 21

CL: Overt act be dangerously close to successful completion of the crime intended MPC: Requires "substantial step" in a course of conduct planned to culminate in the completion of crime

Answer 22

Abandonment : CL: Abandonment is NOT a defense MPC: Yes - a full voluntary and complete abandonment IS a defense. Impossibility : LEGAL - yes defense, FACTUAL - NOT a defense

Answer 23

Legal impossibility - YES Defense a. mistake about criminal law (D thinks its a crime but it really is not) Factual Impossibility - NO Defense a. mistake of D's ability b. mistake about circumstances

Answer 24

Had she completed the act and the circumstances were as she believed would the act constitute a crime - If YES - Guilty and D loses; NO - then Not guilty and D wins

Answer 25

Asking someone to commit a crime with intent that they do commit the crime

Answer 26

If the solicitor cannot be charged with the completed crime - the cannot be charged with solicitation MPC: Renunciation or withdrawal is a defense if the solicitor prevents crime e.g., by persuading not to commit NOT defenses : impossibility, rejection, etc.

Answer 27

Agreement to commit a crime (MPC: unilateral enough, VA: Bilateral) between 2 or more parties intent to enter into the agreement intent by at least 2 to complete the objective of the agreement + overt act in furtherance of the crime

Answer 28

Withdrawal - if given notice to all members of conspiracy in time for them to abandon + neutralize any assistance provided Acquittal of ALL other co-conspirators Yes defense Does NOT merge with the principal offense on completion ( unlike attempt and solicitation)

Answer 29

A co-conspirator is liable for crimes by other co-conspirators if 1. crimes were committee in furtherance of the objectives of the conspiracy AND 2. were foreseeable

Answer 30

Only if shows D lacked the state of mind required for the crime If offered for a specific intent crime : mistake doesn't have to be reasonable If offered for a general intent crime : mistake needs to be reasonable

Answer 31

Generally NOT a defense ONLY if (1) Mistake was objectively reasonable AND (2) D relied on statute that was later invalidated, a judicial decision that was later overruled, or official interpretation of law by public official (NOT a lawyer or police officer) NOT based on advise of counsel that turns out bad

Answer 32

At time of crime D has serious mental disease Causing defect in reasoning Such that D did not understand nature of act or that the act was wrongful ANALYSIS: if the circumstances were in fact as D believed them would it be legally OK for D to commit the crime? If not - then the defense is inapplicable. ` INABILITY TO CONTROL ACTION IS NOT RELEVANT HERE

Answer 33

D is entitled to acquittal if crime was product of mental illness - Only in New Hampshire

Answer 34

As a result of mental illness, D lacked a substantial mental capacity to - understand conduct is wrongful OR - conform conduct to requirements of law

Answer 35

D can use M'naghten test OR the MPC Irresistible Impulse test D needs to provide WRITTEN notification at least 60 days prior to trial that D is intending to use the insanity defense D has burden of proof to satisfy jury that D was insane

Answer 36

Took intoxicant (1) without knowledge of its nature OR (2) under direct duress or (3) pursuant to medical advice while unaware of its intoxicating effects Voluntary

Answer 37

Intentional taking of intoxicant known to be intoxicating: - specific intent crimes : to show no specific intent -OK ( but not for general intent crimes) - homicide: can be defense to first degree murder to disprove premeditation (but not for second degree murder - cannot prove no malice aforethought) Voluntary intoxication only negates the purposely or knowingly mental state NOT the recklessly state of mind

Answer 38

Acquittal only if (1) crime requires a mental state higher than recklessness AND (2) intoxication shows the lack of this mental state Minority : Voluntary Intoxication is completely irrelevant and no defense

Answer 39

No voluntary intoxication defense - even for specific intent crimes UNLESS so much chronic drinking that lead to mental illness insanity Voluntary Intoxication Can be used as defense against first degree murder or aggravated murder - that require purposely or knowingly states of mind and for no premediation NOTE: mere intoxication alone not sufficient negate premeditation

Answer 40

0-7 - Assumed incapable of forming intent 7-14: rebuttable presumption of incapacity 14 and above: subject to prosecution as an adult

Answer 41

0-7 - Assumed incapable of forming intent 7-14: rebuttable presumption of incapacity BUT presumption grows weaker with age closer to 14 14 and above: subject to prosecution as an adult

Answer 42

SUBJECTIVE APPROACH : Majority Criminal design originated with law enforcement officers and - D was not predisposed to commit the offense prior to contact by the govt - police created the intent to commit the offense OBJECTIVE APPROACH : Minority Criminal design originated with law enforcement officers and - Police activity would cause reasonable unpredisposed person to commit offense (just focus on what cop did and not on D)

Answer 43

Prosecution CAN use prior crimes as evidence for showing predisposition - must be similar crime - close in time and probative value > prejudicial effect

Answer 44

D reasonably believed that commission of crime was necessary to avoid an imminent and greater injury to society Objective test : D's beliefs must be objectively reasonable (good faith not sufficient) Limitations No Necessity Defense IF 1. Death - death of another person to protect D's property is never OK - also not ok to kill someone to avoid your own death 2. Fault - Not available when it was D's fault in creating the situation requiring the choice between evils

Answer 45

D committed the crime (except intentional killing) due to a threat of imminent physical harm to D himself or a third party

Answer 46

Ordinary force : OK if - D may use necessary non-deadly force if D believes in imminent danger of physical harm - D may use necessary deadly force if D reasonably believes threatened with death or serious bodily injury

Answer 47

Minority Rule - IF safe to do so, D must retreat Before using deadly force UNLESS in their own home Majority Rule - If there is opportunity to retreat - factor it in to analysis of whether deadly force is reasonable TOTC

Answer 48

Per who starts fight cannot use force in self-defense BUT Can regain the right to use force IF they withdraw or give notice of wanting to withdraw

Answer 49

D guilty of manslaughter (instead of murder) if S actually believed killing was necessary in self- defense but that belief was unreasonable

Answer 50

Non-deadly force - ok if reasonable appearance that use of force justified (from subjective viewpoint of the D) - No duty to retreat : force used should be reasonable under circumstances Deadly Force: - if D is without fault and imminent danger of death or great bodily injury - words alone is not sufficient and fear of life must be reasonable - Retreat is not required EXCEPT if - D is at fault - Or was initial aggressor except in their own home

Answer 51

Force OK if D believes the other person is threatened with imminent physical harm - D has to believe the fore caused was necessary to prevent the harm

Answer 52

D cannot claim reasonable mistake : instead D has to step into shoes of the other; If the other person doesn't have a valid claim of self- defense than D also has no valid claim of defense of others

Answer 53

D can claim defense if used non deadly force when reasonably believed that it was necessary to prevent harm to real/personal property' NO DEADLY FORCE ALLOWED

Answer 54

Wilful false swearing on material while under lawfully authorize oath Cannot hold office or be a juror

Answer 55

Inducing someone to perjure, D can be punished as though D committed the perjury

Answer 56

Offering gift to public official /candidate to influence their actions Receiving a gift, if D is a public employee official holding office

Answer 57

Attempting to intimidate witness or court officer or willfully making false statements to police to impeded their investigation

Answer 58

Providing false report with intent to mislead police officer

Answer 59

Taking money to conceal a crime or to not prosecute a crime (if you're an investigating officer) Wilfully concealing / destroying evidence to hinder prosecution

Answer 60

D preventing police from lawfully arresting them

Answer 61

Murder Voluntary Manslaughter Involuntary Manslaughter Battery

Answer 62

Self-Defense - Defense of others Insanity - Mnaghten - Irresistible Impulse - Durham - MPC = Irresistible impulse + MNaghten Intoxication - Voluntary - only for Specific intent crimes - Involuntary - duress/med advice - use insanity defenses Mistake of Fact - may negate mens rea : mistake - has to be reasonable mistake for gen intent crimes - can be unreasonable for specific intent crimes Mistake of Law

Answer 63

unlawful to knowingly or intentionally possession a controlled substance without a prescription

Answer 64

Actual physical control not necessary to be proven if contraband is located within D's domino and control

Answer 65

Defendant had specific intent to commit robbery. Defendant committed an act beyond mere preparation (e.g., simulating a gun at the counter). The act constitutes a substantial step that strongly corroborates the criminal purpose.

Answer 66

The defendant already went beyond preparation. The abandonment was due to external factors (e.g., increased risk of apprehension). Even in jurisdictions where abandonment is a defense, it must be: 1. Fully voluntary, not due to difficulty or risk. 2. A complete renunciation, not mere delay or switch of victim.

Answer 67

No need for actual force or threat to be used

Answer 68

when agreement is made. Cannot undo retroactively

Answer 69

- act of one element of the crime was committed in the state - act outside lead to result in state - crime involved neglect of duty imposed by the state - attempt or conspiracy outside the state and act inside the state - attempt of conspiracy inside state and act outside state

Answer 70

if a defendant engaged in conduct constituting both a felony and a misdemeanor he can only be charged with the felony, the misdemeanor has merged with the felony.

Answer 71

with the completed crime

Criminal Law Flashcards

(96 cards)