Criminal Law

Question 1

General Principles

Answer 1

Under CL, there must be concurrence of a physical act (actus reus) and intent necessary for the crime (mens rea). For certain crimes, the court will look to whether the D’s conduct was the actual and proximate cause of the crime committed. Here,

Question 2

Actus Reus - Physical Act

Answer 2

D must have either performed a voluntary physical act or failed to act under circumstances imposing a legal duty to act. An act is voluntary bodily movement. Here,

Question 3

Actus Reus - Omission as an Act

Answer 3

Failure to act gives rise to liability ONLY if: 1) D had a specific legal duty to act (relationship, contractual, voluntary, etc.) 2) it was reasonably possible for D to perform the duty. Here,

Question 4

Mens Rea - Mental State

Answer 4

Mens rea is the mental element required at the time a crime was committed. Under CL, the types of intent are specific intent, general intent, malice, and strict liability. Under the MPC, the intent is either purposely, knowingly, or negligently. Intent can be transferred from a target victim to an actual victim. Here,

Question 5

Mens Rea: Common Law - Specific Intent

Answer 5

(Students Can Always Fake A Laugh Even For Ridiculous Bar Facts)

D must have an intent to commit the given crime. These crimes include solicitation, conspiracy, attempt, first degree murder, assault, larceny, embezzlement, false pretenses, robbery, burglary, and forgery. Reasonable and unreasonable mistake of fact and voluntary intoxication are available defenses. Here,

Question 6

Mens Rea: Common Law - Malice

Answer 6

D acts with Malice when he acts with reckless disregard of a reasonably known risk. Common law murder and arson are the only two malice crimes. Here,

Question 7

Mens Rea: Common Law - General Intent

Answer 7

D must be aware he is acting in a certain manner. This includes the crimes of battery, rape, false imprisonment, and kidnapping. Reasonable mistake of fact is a defense to all general intent crimes. Here,

Question 8

Mens Rea: Common Law - Strict Liability

Answer 8

For strict liability crimes, no mens rea is required, i.e. no intent or awareness is required for SL crimes. This includes statutory rape, selling alcohol to minors, etc. The only possible defenses are insanity, involuntary intoxication, and duress. Here,

Question 9

Mens Rea: Model Penal Code - Purposely

Answer 9

A person acts purposely when his conscious object is to engage in certain conduct or cause a certain result. Here,

Question 10

Mens Rea: Model Penal Code - Knowingly

Answer 10

A person acts knowingly when he is aware that his conduct is of a particular nature or knows his conduct will very likely cause a particular result. Here,

Question 11

Mens Rea: Model Penal Code - Recklessley

Answer 11

A person acts recklessly when he knows of substantial risk and unjustifiable risk and consciously disregards it. Here,

Question 12

Mens Rea: Model Penal Code - Negligently

Answer 12

A person acts negligently when he fails to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk. Here,

Question 13

Transferred Intent

Answer 13

D can be liable under the transferred intent doctrine if he intends the harm that is actually caused, but the harm is caused to a different victim. Here,

Question 14

Concurrence

Answer 14

The D must have the intent necessary for the crime at the time he committed the act constituting the crime and the intent must have actuated the act. Here,

Question 15

Causation

Answer 15

Some crimes, like homicide, require result and causation. D’s conduct must be both the actual and proximate cause of the crime committed. Here,

Question 16

Causation - Actual

Answer 16

But for D’s conduct, the crime would not have occurred. Here,

Question 17

Causation - Proximate

Answer 17

The crime is the natural and probable consequence of D’s conduct. Here,

Question 18

Accomplice Liability (always raise with co-conspirator liability)

Answer 18

An accomplice is anyone who actively aids, encourages, or counsels the principal in committing the crime with the intent to encourage the commission. Mere presence at the crime is NOT enough. Here,

As an accomplice, D is liable for the original crime as well as ALL probable and foreseeable crimes committed by the principles during the commission of the original crime. Here

Question 19

Accomplice Liability: Defenses - Withdrawal

Answer 19

D can effectively withdraw before the crime is committed or becomes unstoppable. To withdraw, D must negate or repudiate his initial aid or encouragement. An attempt to neutralize assistance is required if participation went beyond mere encouragement. Here,

Question 20

Accomplice Liability: Defenses - Member of a Protected Class

Answer 20

Those protected by a criminal statute are NOT liable as accomplices. Here,

(minors in a statutory rape case)

Question 21

Accomplice Liability - Accessory After the Fact

Answer 21

An accessory after the fact is one with the intent to help a felon escape or avoid arrest or trial, receives, relieves, or assists a known felon after the felony has been completed. He will be liable for “obstruction of justice” and will not be liable for the crimes committed by the principal. Here,

Question 22

Soliciation

Answer 22

Solicitation is the inciting, urging, or otherwise asking another to commit a crime with the intent that they commit the crime. If the party solicited actually commits the crime, the solicitor will also be liable for the crime. Further, if the party solicited refuses, it is not a defense. Here,

Question 23

Conspiracy (always raise with accomplice liability)

Answer 23

A conspiracy is an agreement between two or more people with the intent to commit a crime. Under the majority rule, some slight overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy is required (mere preparation will suffice). Here,

Each conspirator is liable for the crimes of the other co-conspirators that are 1) committed in furtherance of the conspiracy, and 2) foreseeable. Here,

Question 24

Conspiracy: Defense - Withdrawal

Answer 24

In order for tD to present a withdrawal defense, he must communicate his intent to withdraw to all other conspirators before the target crime occurs. However, he may not withdraw from liability for the conspiracy itself. Here,

Question 25

Conspiracy - Acquittal of Co-Conspirators

Answer 25

If ALL alleged co-conspirators have been acquitted, no party can be convicted of conspiracy. However, a person can be convicted of conspiracy even if his co-conspirators have not been found or charged. Modernly, only one person must have a genuine criminal intent to be guilty of conspiracy. Here,

Question 26

Attempt

Answer 26

An attempt is when one has the specific intent to commit a target crime and takes a substantial step in the direction of the commission of that crime (mere preparation is not enough). Under the majority rule, abandonment is not a valid defense after the substantial step is taken. One cannot attempt a crime of negligence or recklessness. Here,

Question 27

Attempt - Impossibility

Answer 27

A factual impossibility is not a defense to attempt, however, legal impossibility is a valid defense to attempt if the acts D intends to commit are not a crime. Here,

Question 28

Merger

Answer 28

When merger applies, the inchoate offense merges into the target offense, prohibiting D from being prosecuted for both crimes. However, conspiracy does not merge into the target crime and crimes toward different victims never merge. Here,

Question 29

Homicide

Answer 29

Homicide is defined as the killing of another human being by D. Here,

Question 30

Common Law Murder

Answer 30

Common law, murder is the killing of another human being with malice. Malice can be shown by an intent to kill, intent to commit serious bodily injury, reckless indifference/depraved heart murder, or via the felony murder rule.

Question 31

Murder - Reckless Indifference/Depraved Heart

Answer 31

A D can be convicted of cCL murder if he acted with reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life. Here,

Question 32

Murder - Felony Murder Rule

Answer 32

A D can be convicted of CL murder if he 1) intended to commit the underlying felony, and 2) the killing occurred during the commission of an inherently dangerous felony such as burglary, arson, rape, robbery, and kidnapping (BARRK). The Felony must be independent from the act that causes the death. Here, A defense to the underlying felony is a defense to FMR. Here,

Question 33

Murder - Causation

Answer 33

D's act must be both the actual and proximate cause of victim's death. Here,

Question 34

First Degree Murder

Answer 34

FDM is statutory murder committed with premeditation and deliberation. FDM requires a specific intent to kill. Additionally, modern FDM statutes include the Felony Murder Rule and the killing of an on-duty police officer. Here,

Question 35

FDM - Premeditation and Deliberation

Answer 35

If the D made the decision to kill in a cool and dispassionate manner and actually reflected on the idea of killing, even if only for a moment, it is first degree murder. Here,

Question 36

Second Degree Murder

Answer 36

SDM is statutory murder that is not otherwise first degree murder. Here,

Question 37

Voluntary Manslaughter

Answer 37

VM is a killing that would be murder but for the existence of adequate provocation with no cooling off period. Provocation is adequate if there is a sudden and intense passion in the mind of an ordinary person that would cause a reasonable person to lose control, and there was not time for D to cool down. Here,

Question 38

VM - Imperfect Claim of Self-Defense

Answer 38

If a D kills because of an honest, but unreasonable belief his life is in danger, this defense will reduce a murder to manslaughter. Here,

Question 39

Involuntary Manslaughter

Answer 39

Involuntary manslaughter is a homicide with criminal negligence or during the commission of a misdemeanor or non-enumerated felony. Here,

Question 40

Assault

Answer 40

An assault is an attempted battery or the intentional creation, by more than mere words, of a reasonable apprehension of imminent bodily harm. Here,

Question 41

Battery

Answer 41

Battery is the unlawful application of force to another person causing bodily injury or offensive conduct. Here,

Question 42

False Imprisonment

Answer 42

The unlawful confinement of a person without valid consent. Here,

Question 43

Kidnapping

Answer 43

The confinement of another person involving either movement or concealment in a secret place. here,

Question 44

Rape

Answer 44

Rape is the unlawful carnal knowledge of a woman by a man, not her husband, without her consent. Slight penetration counts. A reasonable mistake is a defense to rape, but no defense to statutory rape which is a strict liability crime. Here,

Question 45

Crimes Against Property and Public (LEFT REFS)

Answer 45

All theft crimes are specific intent crimes, so even unreasonable mistake of fact is a defense. Here,

Question 46

Larceny

Answer 46

Larceny is a trespassory taking and carrying away of the personal property of another with the intent to permanently deprive at the time of the taking. A taking is trespassory if it is without consent or consent was given through fraud. Even the slightest movement is sufficient. Here,

Question 47

Embezzlement

Answer 47

Embezzlement is the fraudulent conversion of personal property of another by a person in lawful possession of that property. Here,

Question 48

False Pretenses

Answer 48

False pretenses occurs when one obtains title to the personal property of another by an intentional false statement of past or existing fact, with the intent to defraud the other. A false promise to do something in the future is NOT grounds for false pretenses. Here,

Question 49

Larceny By Trick

Answer 49

Larceny by trick is when one obtains possession of another's personal property using false statements of past or existing fact. If D obtains title, the crime is false pretenses. Here,

Question 50

Robbery

Answer 50

Robber is the taking of personal property from a person or in their presence by the use of force or threat of imminent harm, with the intent to permanently deprive. The victim must be aware of the taking during the act. Here, Robbery = assault or batter + larceny

Question 51

Extortion

Answer 51

Extortion is the obtaining of property through threats of future harm or exposing information. Extortion does NOT require a taking in the victim's presence and it relates to future threats, not just bodily harm (differs from robber). Here,

Question 52

Forgery

Answer 52

Forgery is the making or altering of a writing, with purported legal significance, to be false, with the intent to defraud. Here,

Question 53

Receiving Stolen Property

Answer 53

One is guilty of receiving stolen property if he receives possession and control of stolen personal property, known to have been illegally obtained, with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of his interest in it. Here,

Question 54

Arson

Answer 54

Arson is the burning of the dwelling of another. Majority rule requires charring, not just smoke or scorching damage. Modern law includes any structure. Here,

Question 55

Burglary

Answer 55

Burglary is the breaking and entering the dwelling of another at night with the intent to commit a felony therein. Modern law defines burglary as the entry of a structure of another with the intent to commit a felony or theft therein. Here,

Question 56

Self-Defense

Answer 56

Self-defense may be used in response to imminent threats of unlawful force. Here,

Question 57

Non-Deadly Force

Answer 57

Non-deadly force may be used if D reasonably believes it is necessary to protect himself from imminent unlawful force. Here,

Question 58

Deadly Force

Answer 58

D may use deadly force to protect against an attack that threatens imminent death or great bodily harm. Here,

Question 59

Retreat

Answer 59

Under the majority rule, a D need not retreat before using deadly force, UNLESS the D is the initial aggressor and safe retreat is available. In a minority of jurisdictions, the victim is required to retreat unless they are in their home, or victims of rape or robbery. Here,

Question 60

Initial Agressor

Answer 60

A D cannot assert self-defense as a justification unless 1) the D withdraws, 2) V escalates a minor dispute into a deadly altercation, and 3) safe retreat is unavailable. Here,

Question 61

Imperfect Self-Defense

Answer 61

Some states recognize an imperfect self-defense doctrine where a murder may be reduced to manslaughter even though the D was at fault in starting the altercation if he unreasonably but honestly believed in the necessity of responding with deadly force. Here,

Question 62

Defense of Others

Answer 62

Under the majority view, one may use force in defense of any other person if he reasonably believes the person assisted had the legal right to use force in his own defense. The minority view requires the defendant to "step into the shoes" of the person she defends, and has not defense if that person has no legal right to use force in self-defense. Here,

Question 63

Crime Prevention

Answer 63

A police officer or private citizen may use deadly force if reasonably necessary to prevent the commission of a dangerous felony or to apprehend a dangerous felon. Here, A citizen is privileged to use reasonable force to prevent a felony, and may use deadly force to prevent a "dangerous felony" involving risk of human life. Here,

Question 64

Defense of Property

Answer 64

Deadly force may never be used to defend property. But if D is on the property/home then deadly force can be used in self-defense (not defense of property). Here,

Question 65

Recovery of Property

Answer 65

Force may NOT be used to regain possession of property wrongfully taken, UNLESS one is in immediate pursuit of the wrongful taker. Here,

Question 66

Insanity

Answer 66

Depending on the jurisdiction, one of the four tests is used to determine whether D was so mental ill at the time he committed an offense that he should be entitled to acquittal. Insanity is a defense to ALL crimes.

Question 67

Insanity - M'Naughten

Answer 67

D, as a result of mental defect, did not know the wrongfulness of his act, OR could not understand the nature and quality of his acts. Here, I.e. D doesn't know right from wrong.

Question 68

Insanity - Irresistible Impulse

Answer 68

D, as a result of mental defect, was unable to control his conduct or conform his conduct to the law. Here, i.e. D acted because of an impulse he could not resist.

Question 69

Insanity - MPC: Substantial Capacity

Answer 69

D lacked the substantial capacity either to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law. Here, i.e. D was unable to control his actions or conform his conduct to the law

Question 70

Insanity - Durham Product

Answer 70

D is not guilty of a crime if it was the product of a mental disease or defect. Here, i.e. but for the mental illness, D would not have acted

Question 71

Insanity - Diminished Capacity

Answer 71

Diminished capacity is based on D's mental defect and is available if D can show that he has some mental defect short of insanity that prevented him from forming the mental state required for the crime. This defense is usually limited to specific intent crimes. Here,

Question 72

Intoxication

Answer 72

Intoxication may excuse criminal liability.

Question 73

Voluntary Intoxication

Answer 73

D is voluntarily intoxicated if he voluntarily consumes an intoxicating substance. Voluntary intoxication is ONLY defense to specific intent crimes, and is NOT available if D becomes intoxicated in order to commit the crime. Here,

Question 74

Involuntary Intoxication

Answer 74

D is involuntarily intoxicated if he involuntarily or unknowingly consumes an intoxicating substance. Involuntary intoxication is a defense to ALL crimes if the intoxication renders D "insane". Here,

Question 75

Infancy

Answer 75

Children under the age of 7 cannot be held criminally liable for crimes. Children under the age of 14, the law creates a rebuttable presumption of no criminal liability. However, all children over the age of 14 are treated as adults and subject to criminal liability. Here,

Question 76

Impossibility

Answer 76

A factual impossibility is not a defense to attempt. Here,

Question 77

Mistake of Fact

Answer 77

If a D makes a reasonable mistake of fact that negates the required mental state for the crime, D is NOT guilty of that crime (but no defense to strict liability). However, if D is unreasonably mistaken of fact, then the mistake is a defense ONLY to a specific intent crime. Here,

Question 78

Legal Impossibility

Answer 78

A legal impossibility is a valid defense to attempt if the acts that D intends to commit are not a crime. Here,

Question 79

Mistake of Law

Answer 79

A mistake or ignorance of the law, even if reasonable or on the advice of an attorney, is usually not a defense to any crime. Here,

Question 80

Entrapment

Answer 80

In order to claim a defense of entrapment, D must show the criminal plan originated with the G and D was not predisposed to commit the crime prior to the contact with the government. This is a difficult burden to meet. Here,

Question 81

Necessity

Answer 81

Necessity is available as a defense if the commission of a crime is reasonably necessary to avoid an imminent and greater injury to society from a natural force. However, necessity is not available if the crime committed results in the death o another D originally caused the circumstances giving rise to the necessity. Here,

Question 82

Duress

Answer 82

Duress is available as a defense to a crime that D committed under reasonable belief that the crime was necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to D or a member o D's family, however, duress is NOT defense to homicide crimes. Here,

Question 83

Consent

Answer 83

Consent must be given freely by a party capable of consenting, however, consent of the victim is almost NEVER a defense unless the crime is a minor assault or battery, or requires non-consent as an element (rape). Here,