Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Law School > Criminal Law Final > Flashcards

Criminal Law Final Flashcards

1
Q

Durham/NH Rule

A

Was the defendants act a “product” of mental illness? Would the crime have committed but-for the defendant’s mental illness?

No longer of much practical use. Easiest for defendant/most value.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Specific Intent Crimes

A

Solicitation
Conspiracy
Attempt
Larceny
Receiving SP
Embezzlement
False Pretenses
Robbery
Burglary
Forgery
1st Degree Murder
Assault (if described as attempted burglary).

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Six Defenses to Felony Murder

A
  1. Defense to underlying felony
  2. Underlying felony must be something other than killing (Merger Rule).
  3. Death must be foreseeable
  4. Once defendant reaches temporary safety after commission of a felony, any death caused after cannot be based upon original felony.
  5. Underlying felony must be inherently violent by definition.
  6. A homicide committed by someone other than one of the felons (mixed JDX - Agency Rule).
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

FM - Killing by third party

A

Majority (Agency Theory):
- Person who killed must have been an “agent” of defendant. Responsible for actions of co-felons but not third parties.

Minority:
- Find defendant guilty if any innocent kills an innocent OR if D seriously escalated the situation (took hostages/human shields).

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Intent for Theft Crimes

A

Larceny/Larceny by Trick: Intent to permanetly deprive
Embezzlement: Intent to illegally convert property
False Pretenses: intent to defraud.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Legal Impossibility

A

No crime.

When a defendant completed all of his intended acts, but the sum of his acts are not a crime.

Ex: smuggling what you think are diamonds, but they end up not being diamonds.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Factual Impossibility

A

Guilty of attempt/solicitation/conspiracy

Defendant had the mental state and were only prevented by the facts not being what they expected them to be.

Ex: Trying to pickpocket, but no wallet. Trying to shoot someone but gun not loaded. Trying to poison someone, but its not poison.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

M’Naughten Test

A

Cognitive based test

At the time of defendant’s conduct, as a result of mental defect or disease, the defendant lacked the ability to know the wrongfulness of his action or could not understand the nature and quality of his acts.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Irresistible Impulse Test

A

The defendant, as a result of mental disease or defect, lacked the capacity for self-control and free choice.

Entirely volitional based test

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Insanity - MPC (ALI) Test

A

Did the defendant, as a result of mental disease or defect, lack the “substantial” capacity to either appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law?

Combined the three previous tests. Cognitive and violitional

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Redline Rule

A

Under the redline rule a co-felon in many states cannot be charged with murder under the felony murder rule simply bc a co-felon was killed by a victim, bystander or police during the commission of a felony.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

2nd Degree Murder

A

Every other murder without 1st degree requirements. All intentional killings done without premeditation/deliberation, all killings with intent to create serious bodily injury, all depraved heart/gross recklessness, all FM not within statute.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Garner Rule

A

Police officer can only use deadly force on a fleeing felon when they have probable cause to believe the felon posed a threat.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Couch Rule

A

A private citizen may only use deadly force to prevent a felon from fleeing where they have reasonable belief that the felon poses a threat of serious physical harm to that citizen or to other citizens.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Entrapment (Majority/Federal)

A

Requires that, in order to successfully establish entrapment, a defendant must establish that he was not predisposed to commit the act.

When D raises entrapment defense, prosecution can admit previously inadmissible evidence on defendants past criminal conduct to prove disposition. D must implicitly concede the defendant committed the act.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Entrapment (Minority/CA)

A

Requires only that defendant arguing entrapment establish that the police conduct at issue would have persuaded (entrapped) a reasonable law abiding person into committing the crime.

D doesn’t have to admit guilt and can succeed irrespective of predisposition. Focused on eliminating police/gov behavior that encourages crime.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Defense of Others (Minority)

A

Alter Ego Rule:

When you come to the aid of anyone else, you have no legal rights greater than those you are attempting to aid. Only if the person you are helping had a right to use SD do you have a right to defend them.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Defense of Others (Majority)

A

Complete defense

Does not require a pre-existing relationship.

Reasonable mistake of fact is a defense when coming to the aid of others.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Self Defense and Unlawful Arrest

A

Modern/California: unlawful arrest may only be resisted peacefully and you can only use force to defend yourself from excessive force.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Self Defense - Initial Aggressors

A

Initial aggressor cannot claim right to self defense for non-deadly force unless:
- they have withdrawn and communicated this to victim
- initially used non-deadly force and now deadly force is being used against them.
- even under majority rule, must retreat if safe means to do so

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Deadly force by a victim (Minority Rule)

A

Prior to using deadly force in self defense, victim of a deadly attack must first “retreat to the wall” if it is safe to do so.

Not required to retreat if:
- In victims own home (castle doctrine)
- If victim of violent felony, such as rape or robbery - does not have to retreat even if one is safely available.
- Police officers
- If no safe way to treat = no duty to retreat!!!!

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Deadly force by a victim (Majority Rule)

A

Full Acquittal

A victim can use deadly force in self defense anytime they reasonably believe deadly force is going to be used against them and their response is reasonably necessary to stave off the attack.

Stand your ground JDX - your belief must only be subjectively honest.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Diminished Capacity

A

Voluntary intoxication & mental defect/disease

Partial mitigating defense

Split JDX (no CA) - only allowed for specific intent crimes

24
Q

Burglary

A

Specific Intent Crime

  1. Breaking (entry by force, threat or fraud - doesn’t have to be true breaking)
  2. Entering (sufficient if any part of the body crosses into the threshold)
  3. Dwelling house
  4. At night (common law)
  5. Intent to commit a felony or theft therein
    - intent to commit felony must have existed at the time of the breaking in - NOT burglary if intent arises after inside the house
25
Q

Battery

A

Completed assault.

Gen intent crime.

26
Q

Kidnapping

A

Forced movement of a significant distance

If the charged offense is kidnapping for the purposes of committing another crime, the movement must be more than merely incidental.

Did the movement increase the physical or mental risk of harm?

27
Q

Supplier Accomplice Liability

A

Knowledge + stake in the outcome

Mere knowledge on part of the supplier, when their goods/services are to be used in the commission of a dangerous felony are more likely to find accomplice liability.

If low grade, courts less likely to care.

To establish knowledge, consider:
Nature of goods- innocent or harmful.
Volume of business

28
Q

Accomplice Liability - Arguments

A

Encouragement
Connection (how much was the connection?)
Relationship between parties
What happened immediately after
Physical distance from crime

29
Q

Conspiracy: Withdrawal Before/After Crime

A

Before: In majority JDX:
- A withdrawal prior to first overt act could relieve withdrawing participant from liability

After
- If withdrawing from an already existing/ongoing, the act of withdrawing will not relieve them from liability for the conspiracy itself or any reasonably foreseeable crimes already done - but they can be saved from liability for future, not yet committed crimes.

30
Q

Co-Conspirator exception to the hearsay rule

A

Limited to statements during the course and furtherance of the conspiracy. If conspiracy ends, the statements made by co-conspirators after that point can’t be used.

31
Q

Wharton’s Rule

A

Precludes a conviction of conspiracy when one of the elements of the crime itself requires an agreement between the two (or more) people in order for the crime to have been committed. AND only the minimum amount of people needed for that crime participated.

Ex: Adultery or dueling

32
Q

Gerbardi Rule

A

Victims/those meant to be protected by a law cannot be part of conspiracy.

Ex: Minor cannot be co-conspirator for statutory rape.

33
Q

Conspiracy - Meeting of Minds

A

Majority: Requires subjective meeting and full agreement

Minority (MPC): No meeting of the minds is required and it is sufficient to simply ask.

34
Q

Solicitation CA Rule/Evidentiary Requirement

A

Solicitation requires at least. two witnesses to the alleged solicitation or one witness with corroborating evidence.

35
Q

Attempt - “Substantial Step Test”

A

MPC:
Backward looking

Substantial step must have been taken towards the completing of the targeted offense.

  • Voluntary abandonment defense
  • Worried about having to let cops wait until someone is committing a crime.
36
Q

Attempt - Dangerous Proximity Test

A

Forward looking - how close are you?

The would be perpetrator must have come within “dangerous proximity to success” in their effort to complete targeted offense.

Sliding scale - more dangerous crime you can be charged when further away.

No voluntary abandonment defense.

CA follows modern blended version of this.

37
Q

Attempt

A

Specific intent crime. Moved from zone of preparation into zone of perpetration.

Needs:
1. Specific Intent to complete the eventual offense
2. Dependent on either “substantial step” or “dangerous proximity” test

38
Q

Extortion - Victim Allowable Threats

A
  • Victim can demand thief to return property.
  • Victim cannot threaten criminal prosecution to obatin more than they lost.
  • An alleged victim cannot demand something other than item stolen or its monetary value.
  • Cannot threaten to leak info/pictures unrelated.
39
Q

Robbery - taking by fear or threat

A

Putting victim in fear = threat of imminent harm

  1. Threat must be to a human being
  2. Threat of future harm do not constitute robbery (this would be extortion).
40
Q

False Pretenses - Nature of False Representation

A

Majority: false pretense must be based on a present or past fact. D cannot be guilty for future unfulfilled promises.

Minority (MPC and CA): Still consider future fact enough for FP.

41
Q

Embezzlement - Employees

A

If an employer hands something to an employee - employee has custody and if they misappropriated it would be larceny.

If employee collects on behalf of employer from 3rd party, then employee has possession and misappropriation would be embezzlement.

Cash register: if brief then employee still lawful possession - embezzlement. , if long period of time then employee goes back for it - larceny.

42
Q

Larceny - Innocent Taker (Minority)

A

Minority + MPC:
One who innocently takes becomes guilty if they later decide to keep or risk.

43
Q

Larceny - Changes Mind

A

If trespasser takes with intent to care and then changes their mind and decide to keep or risk it, it is a larceny.

44
Q

Involuntary Manslaughter

A

Result of unintentional homicides.

Two theories:
- Criminal Negligence: not sufficiently reckless for depraved heart/no defendant subjective awareness required for DH. Ex: falling asleep at wheel/carelessly handling firearm.
- Misdemeanor Manslaughter

45
Q

Agency Rule

A

Majority - A defendant is responsible for the behavior of co-felons, but not for the actions of third parties.

46
Q

Ireland Rule

A

Prohibits assaultive based crimes from being the basis for felony murder.

47
Q

Merger Rule

A

Felony murder cannot be predicated upon a felony that is an integral part of the homicide. It must be independent and not merely the killing itself - not assaultive based.

48
Q

Specific Intent

A

Intent to commit crime + intent to achieve specific result.

Specific Intent Crimes: Solicitation, Conspiracy, Attempt, Larceny, Receiving SP, Embezzlement, False Pretenses, Robbery, Burglary, Forgery, Intent to Kill 1st Degree

49
Q

Specific Intent Defenses

A

All the defenses for general intent crimes PLUS:

  • Diminished Capacity (voluntary intoxication or mental defect/disease)
  • Unreasonable mistake of fact.
50
Q

FM: Felony other than killing itself

A

FM requires the perpetration of a felony other than the assault with caused homicide.

Merger Rule - cannot convert assault. Felony must be factually distinct from killing.

51
Q

Larceny - Intent to Permanently Deprive - Innocent Taker (Majority)

A

Under majority:
One who innocently takes another’s property and later learns of the mistake and decides to keep it (or handle it in a risky manner) they are not guilty of larceny.

Recourse would need to be a tort wrongful conversion claim.

52
Q

The Pinkerton Rule/Federal Rule

A

All co-conspirators could be held responsible for any and all reasonably foreseeable substantive crimes committed in furtherance of the criminal enterprise.

Thus, membership in conspiracy sufficient to establish criminal liability for substantive crimes without the government having to prove defendant aided and abetted.

53
Q

MPC Co-Conspirator Liability

A

Co-conspirator does not automatically become responsible for all crimes committed in furtherance of the conspiracy unless they actually provide material assistance to those who commit the crime.

Aided and abettor theory

54
Q

Conspiracy - Meeting of Minds Majority

A

CANNOT be a co-conspirator if they lack unlawful intent

CANNOT conspire to commit reckless crime

CANNOT conspire with undercover agent

CANNOT conspire with legally incompetent

Must join before conspiracy has ended.

55
Q

Self Defense Traditional Common Law Victim Deadly Force

A

the actor must have shown that he or she retreated prior to using deadly force unless: 1) it was not safe to retreat; or 2) the incident occurred at the actor’s home (castle doctrine)

Law School (11 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions