Criminal Law Flashcards
(24 cards)
Malice
Murder, arson, or in statutory definition
Can be established by showing a mental state of either (1) intent or (2) extremely reckless behavior
Recklessness
Prosecutor must est extreme deviation from normal behavior
Voluntary intox is not a recognized defense
If D made a mistake wrst a critical fact found in definition of a crime then it must be a reasonable mistake (ex: thought shooting a deer—must be reasonable mistake)
Purposely
with conscious intent to cause the result
Knowingly
with knowledge that the conduct will necessarily or very likely cause the result
Specific Intent
Must prove: (a) actual intent; (b) if D made a mistake and, because of it, did not have necessary intent it doesn’t make any difference if reasonable or not; (c) voluntary intox is a defense to specific intent but must have been so drunk they didn’t know the consequences of their action
Murder
unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought
Mens rea for malice aforethought: intent to kill / cause serious bodily hear / depraved heart / felony murder (if killing by person or agent (usually not the police) during an Inherently dangerous crime: BRAKES [Burglary; Robbery; Arson; Kidnapping; Sexual crimes]
Manslaughter
Involuntary: Recklessly causing the death of a person
Voluntary: For reducing murder to manslaughter, provocation must be such as to raise a sudden and intense passion in the mind of an ordinary person, and D must have in fact been provoked. The provocation requirement for voluntary manslaughter has both objective and subjective elements. The provocation must be such that an ordinary person would have been provoked, and the defendant must have been so provoked. There are also objective and subjective elements as to the “cooling off” issue (ex: spouse with another)
Attempt
Intent and in close proximity to the crime
state must est (1) a specific intent to commit that crime and (2) behavior putting D very near that crime.
Attempted murder—St must show specific intent to kill (not just recklessness)
At common law, the crime of attempted larceny required both a specific intent by the actor to commit a larceny and an act that put the defendant in close proximity to completing the crime.
The MPC and most state criminal codes modify the “proximity” test for the act requirement, instead requiring an act that constitutes a “substantial step” towards commission of the crime
Aiding and Abetting: Principal vs. Accomplice vs. Access after the Fact
Principals are those who, with the requisite mental state, actually engage in the act or omission that causes the criminal result
Accomplice is one who, with the intent that the crime be committed, aids, counsels, or encourages the principal before or during the commission of the offense. Under modern statutes, accomplices are generally treated as principals
An accessory after the fact is one who receives, relieves, comforts, or assists another knowing that he has committed a felony, in order to help the felon escape arrest, trial, or conviction. Unlike an accomplice, an accessory after the fact has committed a separate crime with a punishment unrelated to the felony committed
Person Protected by Statute
Cannot convict someone if they were the ones that statute was designed to protect (ex: statutory rape, charging minor with intent of having the crime occur).
If members of a conspiracy agree to commit an act that violates a statute designed to protect persons within a given class, a person within that class not only cannot be guilty of the crime itself, as discussed above, but also cannot be guilty of a conspiracy to commit the crime.
Conspiracy
C-law: An agreement between 2+ people to commit an unlawful act / American: An agreement by 2+ people to commit an unlawful act plus an overt act
Can’t be conspiracy if its not unlawful for one member (like a minor or someone protected by the statute)
Co-conspirators liable for crime of conspiracy and any substantive offenses created in furtherance of the conspiracy
Withdrawal: must voluntarily give it up and communicate it to all other participants in time for them to change their plans—MPC calls for thwarting the crime
An effective withdrawal negates liability for all substantive offenses that take place after withdrawal but does not negate the crime of conspiracy
Burglary
Intentional breaking (includes using a key found under a mat or opening a window or entry via fraud) and entering of dwelling house of another at night with intent to commit felony or larceny in that house
Burglary does not merge with any other crime once inside the dwelling
Robbery
Taking and carrying away of personal prop of another through force or intimidation from other’s person or present with intent to permanently deprive
Self-Defense
D must (1) reasonably believe under unlawful attack and (2) he used reasonable amount of force to protect himself.
Arson
Malicious burning of the dwelling house of another.
Malice can be shown by showing intention of burning or extremely reckless—charring of any structure counts
Larceny
Intentional taking and carrying away of the personal property in possession of another without consent with intent of permanently depriving the other of the property
Slightest movement is sufficient
Defense: intent to return equivalent property is a defense to larceny if the defendant has the present ability to replace the property and the property is such that it is unlikely to matter to the owner whether he has the original or its equivalent
Embezzlement
Theft by a high level employee or by a person in a position of trust (acct, lawyer, bank manager). Fraudulent conversion of the property of another by a person in lawful possession of it.
If high-level employee with control over prop for a long amount of time and there is a theft then embezzlement. If low level, control over prop for limited amount of time then larceny
Common Law Mental States: Specific Intent
Specific Intent: when the crime requires not just the desire to do the act but also the desire to achieve a specific result
• Person: assault and 1st degree premeditated murder
• Theft:(Larceny, embezzlement, false pretenses
• Property: Robbery, forgery, burglary
• Inchoate: Solicitation, conspiracy, attempt
Common Law Mental States: Malice
When a D act intentionally or with reckless disregard of an obvious or known risk
• Murder / Arson
Common Law Mental States: General Intent
D need only be aware generally of factors constituting crime. He need not intend a specific result
• Battery / Forcible Rape / False Imprisonment / Kidnapping
Common Law Mental States: SL
Absence of mental state
• Public welfare offenses / statutory rape
MPC Mens Rea
o Purpose: D acts purposely when it is his conscious desire to achieve a particular result
o Knowledge: D acts knowingly when he is aware of what he’s doing and is aware that it is practically certain that his conduct will cause that result
o Recklessness: D acts recklessly when aware of substantial and unjustifiable risk and consciously disregards that risk
o Negligence: D acts negligently when he should have been aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk
o SL: No mental state required
Defenses
o Self-defense
o Mistake of fact
o Voluntary Intoxication
o Insanity—Affirmative defense, it is permissible to impose the burden of proof on the defendant.
M’Naghten rule: provides for acquittal if a disease of the mind caused a defect of reason, such that the defendant lacked the ability at the time of his actions to either: (i) know the wrongfulness of his actions; or (ii) understand the nature and quality of his actions.
MPC: M’Naghten + inability to conform his conduct to the requirements of law.
Involuntary Intoxication
Intoxication is involuntary if it results from the taking of an intoxicating substance without knowledge of its nature, under direct duress imposed by another, or pursuant to medical advice. Such intoxication is treated as mental illness, in which case the defendant is entitled to acquittal if, because of the intoxication, the defendant meets the applicable test for insanity
