Exam Review Flashcards

Question

What are the requirements to use Defense of Others?

Answer 1

* Danger to other – must reasonably believe that the other person is in imminent danger of unlawful bodily harm * Degree of Force – degree of force used by D is no greater than that which seems reasonably necessary to prevent the harm * Belief in another person’s right to use force – D reasonably believes that the party being assisted would have the right to use in his own defense the force that the defendant proposes to use in his assistance

Answer 2

D “stands in the shoes” of the person he aids. If the person aided would not have had the right to use that degree of force in his own defense, D’s claim fails

Answer 3

one has a limited right to use force to defend one’s property against a wrongful taking

Answer 4

* Reasonable belief that there is an immediate threat of a person entering or attempting to enter in order to commit a violent felony * Don’t have to use proportionate force

Answer 5

committing an act of sexual penetration and using force or a threat of force or knowing that the victim is unable to understand the nature of the act or is unable to give knowing consent

Answer 6

intent to commit sexual penetration

Answer 7

actual permission and nothing less than positive willingness clearly communicated should ever count as consent

Answer 8

Using preponderance of the evidence in sexual assault Requires affirmative consent + lower standard of proof

Answer 9

Argument against #1 – not a high enough bar in Title IX cases * Cases where there is a 49% chance of innocence will still punish the student * Although not incarceration – still serious and will unfairly punish a student and affect their education and future lives Argument against #2 – Requires victim and accused to carry the same evidential burden, putting them on the same ground •Uneven burdens of proof can further discriminate against victims who have already faced so much trauma

Answer 10

Crime of preparing for or seeking to commit another crime

Answer 11

Incomplete and Complete

Answer 12

* Give law enforcement a basis to intervene * Conduct designed to cause or culminate in the commission of a crime indicates actor is disposed towards such activity – there needs to be safeguards against this * If any actor couldn’t be punished if they tried to carry out a crime but were unsuccessful due to luck this could “shock the conscious” and would be an inequality of treatment if they weren’t punished

Answer 13

Correspond with actus and mens rea Act must constitute a substantial step D must intend to commit the specific crime

Answer 14

attempt merges with the completed crime – CANT be charged with attempt and complete crime, only one or the other

Answer 15

Criminal attempts involves two “intents” – BOTH must be satisfied Actor’s conduct must be intentional Specific intention of committing the completed offense

Answer 16

Physical proximity doctrine – the closer the preparatory act (actus reus element) is to the complete crime, the stronger the case for calling it an attempt •How close did D come to completing the offense? Dangerous proximity doctrine – the greater the gravity and probability of the offense and the nearer the act to the crime, the stronger probability for calling act an attempt Indispensable element test – look at whether an indispensable aspect of the endeavor remains to be completed, if they do not have the element, they have not yet crossed the line of preparation v. attempt Probable desistance test – if there was no interruption from an outside source, would the conduct have resulted in the intended crime? Last Act Test – only after the actor had taken the last step and events were out of his control could the law punish an attempt RIL/Unequivocality test – requires that the defendant’s conduct unequivocally manifests his criminal intent •If conduct could be indicative either of a non-criminal intent or of a criminal one, it is not sufficient •If conduct does unequivocally manifest criminality of intent, it suffices even though completion of the plan is many steps away Substantial step test – MPC/IL approach/majority rule – considers actions undertaken in preparation of the commission of a crime

Answer 17

Preparation might be enough if it comes very near to the accomplishment of act and intent to complete it renders crime so probable that act will be a crime

Answer 18

D intended and constitutes a crime but he fails to complete it because of a factual circumstance unknown to him or beyond his control Factual impossibility is almost never accepted as a defense to attempt

Answer 19

when D committed acts which as a matter of law could not have amounted to a crime

Answer 20

Pure legal impossibility – when an actor engages in lawful conduct that he incorrectly believes constituted a crime •Court will always acquit - Hybrid legal impossibility – actor intended a crime but completing it was impossible due to a mistake of the legal status of something necessary to complete it

Answer 21

if D renounces or stops his involvement of the crime prior to its completion, he can invoke an abandonment clause

Answer 22

Must be voluntary decision •Threat of immediate apprehension – where D learns that if he goes through with his plans, he is likely to be immediately apprehended, it is involuntary EX – if D doesn’t shoot because there are police present Postponement for a better time – does not constitute abandonment

Answer 23

tools that are employed when one wishes to have some effect, or achieve some goal, through intimidation A communication containing a threat must be such that a reasonable person would (1) take the statement as a serious expression of an intention to inflict bodily harm and (2) perceive such expression as being communicated to effect some change or achieve some goal through intimidation

Answer 24

When one requests or encourages another to perform a criminal act, regardless of whether the latter agrees No overt act required – as soon as D makes his request or proposal, crime of solicitation is complete

Answer 25

NO SUCH THING!

Answer 26

3 approaches to determining when a solicitation is actually an attempt Treats every solicitation as a specific type of attempt to be governed by ordinary attempt principles A naked solicitation is not an attempt, but a solicitation accompanied by other overt acts (offer of reward or giving materials) is an attempt Similar to 2nd view, but in order to find the solicitor guilty of an attempt, the other overt acts must proceed beyond what would be called preparation if the solicitor planned to commit the crime himself

Answer 27

expressly makes it irrelevant that D fails to communicate with person he solicits if his conduct was designed to make such a communication

Answer 28

An agreement between two or more persons to do either an unlawful act or a lawful act by unlawful means

Answer 29

Agreement – between two or more persons Objective – to carry out an act which is either unlawful or which is lawful but to be accomplished by unlawful means Mens Rea – a culpable intent on the part of D – intent must consist of at least the mental state required for the object crime

Answer 30

Inchoate crime – conspiracy may be (and frequently is) found where no substantive crime is ever committed, society is able to stop conduct before the harmful effects of substantive criminality occurs Group activity – group activity of criminal nature is more dangerous than criminal conduct engaged in by an individual working alone Pressure element – people in groups can be pressured to carry out acts while if they are lone-wolfs, they might abandon their efforts if they change their mind •Contrary view – group activity also increases the likelihood that there will be a leak

Answer 31

Common law - NO - can be charged with the conspiracy and attempt or successful completion of offense IL - YES

Answer 32

In some jurisdictions, yes - this is IL law Modern limit - most courts now reject such substantive liability founded upon mere membership

Answer 33

No legitimate use for goods or services existed Stake in venture – if nature of sales shows that he in some sense he acquired a stake in the crime Controlled commodities – more likely to be a participant in conspiracy if substance sold was a governmentally-controlled one that, in the quantities in question could only have been used for illegal purposes Large proportion of sales – if sales to criminal purchasers represent a large proportion of supplier’s overall sales of item, he is more likely to be held to have the requisite intent Serious crime – more likely to be found to be a participant in conspiracy where the illegal activity is known to the supplier to constitute a serious crime, than where the end use is a misdemeanor

Answer 34

P can prove conspiracy even when there is no proof of an agreement amongst the conspirators through the use of circumstantial evidence

Answer 35

Unilateral approach to conspiracy (MPC) – does not require actual agreement between two or more person. When an individual agrees with an undercover agent who has no intent to commit crime, there can be a conviction for conspiracy Bilateral/Multilateral approach to conspiracy – requires an actual agreement between two or more persons. When an individual agrees with an undercover agent who has no intent to commit the crime, there can be no conviction for conspiracy •Someone merely feigning agreement does not equal conspiracy!

Answer 36

usually dealing with a single subject matter (drugs) – looks like a chain of command with different levels of involvement where you know many other people are involved but you know their identity * Can be liable for other chain’s acts (check this!) * Single conspiracy in which each person is responsible for a distinct act within overall plan – looks like a chain * Can involve hub and spoke conspiracies at every level

Answer 37

possibility of multiple conspiracies – point man is the hub, at the center, conspires with spokes Spokes don’t have knowledge of each other and cannot be charged with the other’s crimes

Answer 38

only one conspiracy – same as hub and spoke but spokes know about each other or should have known and are performing separate functions For a wheel conspiracy to be considered a single conspiracy rather than a series of smaller separate ones: Each spoke knows that other spokes exist (doesn’t necessarily have to know their precise identity) Various spokes have, and realize that they have, a community of interest

Answer 39

success of venture depends on performance of the other spokes

Answer 40

where a substantive offense is defined so as to necessarily require more than one person, a prosecution for the substantive offense must be brought, rather than a conspiracy prosecution Doesn't apply in IL!

Answer 41

if more people are involved in the crime than are needed to commit - conspiracy charge can be brought EX - threesome!

Answer 42

done through an affirmative act communicated to all co-conspirators notifying them that you desire to withdraw Only complete defense if done before the overt act is committed •If done after agreement made – precludes liability for all subsequent acts but guilty of conspiracy

Answer 43

complete defense relieving liability for all prior involvement for the conspiracy D must thwart the success of the conspiracy

Exam Review Flashcards

(68 cards)