General Principles

Question 1

Define “felony”

Answer 1

A serious crime punishable by imprisonment (usually for more than on year) or death

*at CL - felonies were crimes punishable by forfeiture of goods, land, or both (eg, murder, rape, burglary)

Question 2

What is “merger doctrine”?

Answer 2

States that lesser included offenses (crimes consisting of only some of the elements of a greater crime) merge into the greater offense upon conviction (to avoid being convicted of both)

*merger applies to the crimes of solicitation and attempt BUT NOT CONSPIRACY

Question 4

What are the four essential elements of any criminal offense?

Answer 4

Generally requires proof of:

1. physical act (actus reus, or the “guilty act”)
2. requisite mental state (mens rea or the “guilty mind”)
3. concurrence, meaning the physical act and mental state existed at the same time; AND
4. causation (both factorial and proximate) of a harmful result

*many offenses also require the extinct of “attendant circumstances” meaning other facts that render ∆’s conduct and intent criminal

Question 5

What is “actus reus”?

Answer 5

Voluntary physical act committed by the ∆ and is required to be found guilty of a crime

*voluntary act is some sort of bodily movement that is the product of the ∆’s conscious exercise of will

Question 6

What is “malice”?

Answer 6

the reckless disregard of an obvious or high risk that a specific harmful result will occur

*malice is similar to specific intent, BUT it is a separate category, not available for specific intent defenses

Question 7

What is “general intent”?

Answer 7

type of mens rea that requires proof only that ∆ indeed to act in such a way that is prohibited by law

**general intent may be inferred merely from the ∆’s criminal conduct
-as opposed to specific intent, general intent does NOT require the ∆ to have intended the results of their actions

Question 8

Define “strict liability”?

Answer 8

a strict liability crime typically does not have any intent element, or the requisite state of mind is limited (eg, statutory rape)

*strict liability is usually regulatory in nature to protect public health and safety

Question 9

What is an “insanity” defense?

Answer 9

-“insanity” means that the ∆ was so mentally ill at time of crime that they should be acquitted

-insanity is an AFFIRMATIVE defense that relives the accused of all criminal responsibility for their actions

**all ∆’s are presumed sane - BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE ∆

Question 10

What are the 3 elements of the M’Naghten test for insanity?

Answer 10

Insanity will be grounds for acquittal under the M’Naghten test if, while committing the act, the ∆:

1. was experiencing a disease of the mind;
2. this diseased caused a defect of reason; AND
3. as a result, the ∆ lacked the ability to (a) know the wrongfulness of their conduct OR (b) understand the nature and quality of their actions

Question 11

What is the legal standard for the Irresistible Impulse Test for insanity?

Answer 11

A ∆ may be acquitted if they establish that due to mental illness, they were unable to control their actions or conform their conduct to the law

**under this test –> a ∆ will not be criminally liable even though they CAN distinguish right from wrong AND were aware of the nature and quality of their actions, IF they can demonstrate their inability to control their actions were due to a mental disease

Question 12

What is the legal standard for the Durham (or Product) Test for insanity?

Answer 12

A ∆ may be acquitted when their criminal actions were the “product of mental disease or defect,” meaning they would not have committed the crime but for their mental disease

**“mental disease or defect” is an abnormal condition of one’s mind that has a substantial effect on emotional or mental processes, causing impairment of the ability to control one’s behavior

Question 13

What is the two-part legal standard for the MPC Test for insanity?

Answer 13

A ∆ may be acquitted if, due to a mental disease or defect, they lacked the substantial capacity to EITHER:

1. appreciate the wrongfulness of their conduct; OR
2. conform their conduct to the requirements of the law

**MPC combines Irresistible Impulse AND M’Naghten tests

Question 14

What is the legal standard for the defense of voluntary intoxication?

Answer 14

Vol Intox is a defense to a crime ONLY IF it negates the mental state for a SPECIFIC INTENT CRIME

Question 15

What is the legal standard for the defense of infancy under common law?

Answer 15

At CL, infancy establishes one’s incapacity to commit a crime because of one’s age at the time of the crime.

-7 yo’s and under: no child under 7 is responsible for criminal actions

-7-14: a rebuttable presumption exists that children between 7-14 are incapable of criminal intent

-14 >: all children ages 14 > are treated the same as adults

**Numerous states have abolished the common law presumptions through statute

Question 16

What are the 2 requirements for raising self-defense?

Answer 16

A person may raise the privilege of self-defense IF they had a REASONABLE belief that:

1. they face a threat of imminent and unlawful physical harm AND
2. their use of force was necessary to prevent that harm

Question 17

What is the 2-part legal standard for raising defense of others?

Answer 17

A person may use reasonable force to defend a 3rd party when they reasonably believe that a 3rd party:

1. faces a threat of immediate and unlawful violence from another; AND
2. would have had the legal right to use force in their own self-defense

**A majority allows for mistake if there was a reasonable appearance of the 3rd party’s right to use force

Question 18

What is the legal standard for using NON-deadly force in defense of a dwelling?

Answer 18

May be used in defense of property when one reasonably believes it is necessary to stop or prevent another’s illegal entry or attack upon their property

*deadly force MAY be used to defend property ONLY if in conjunction w/ another privileged use of force

Question 19

What is a “mistake of fact”?

Answer 19

occurs when a ∆ misunderstands or is wrong about what is factually true, and as a result of this mistake, commits a crime

*example: ∆ shoots and kills what they believe is an animal, but in fact, they have shot a person

Question 20

What is “mistake of law”?

Answer 20

When a ∆ engages in conduct they do not know is illegal

*example: a ∆ yells “fire” in a movie theatre as a prank, but is unaware that this action violates a city ordinance prohibiting intentionally inciting panic in a public space

Question 21

What is the legal standard for the defense of “consent”?

Answer 21

The victim’s “consent” may be a complete defense IF it negates an essential element of the crime (eg, rape, where if the victim consents, there has been no rape)

*consent may also be a defense for certain minor offenses, such as assault or battery, where the victim may have consented to the infliction of physical violence

Question 22

What is “duress” in crime law?

Answer 22

aka “compulsion/coercion” is a defense raised by a ∆ who reasonable bleeped that the only way to avoid unlawful threats of bodily harm or death to themself or a third party was to engage in unlawful conduct

*duress may be a defense to all crimes except INTENTIONAL homicide

Question 23

What is “entrapment”?

Answer 23

an act by police/gov official inducing a ∆ to commit a crime they had not contemplated or would not have committed if not for the inducement

*entrapment is often used to obtain evidence needed to prosecute the ∆ and is an affirmative defense to any crimes charged as a result

Question 24

HYPO:

If a ∆ is driving recklessly and the victim changes lanes to avoid him, and lighting strikes the victim’s car, killing him, will the ∆ be guilty of manslaughter?

Answer 24

NO.

Even tho the victim would not have died but for the ∆’s recklessness, the lightning was an “act of nature” amounting to an intervening act or “superseding factor”

Question 25

What is the "vagueness" doctrine?

Answer 25

Prohibits laws that do not provide reasonable notice about which acts are either required or prohibited; any such laws will be found unconstitutional under the DPC

Question 26

Which three types of "involuntary" acts will NOT constitute actus reus?

Answer 26

"Involuntary" actions that do NOT satisfy actus reus include acts that are: 1. not a conscious exercise of one's will (eg, being pushed into another person); 2. convulsive or reflexive; OR 3. done while one is asleep or unconscious *a voluntary act is considered a conscious exercise of one's will

Question 27

Which 3 elements are required for an omission to satisfy actus reus?

Answer 27

An omission satisfies the actus reus requirement if: 1. the law imposes a specific duty to act (by statute, K or legal relationship) 2. the ∆ was aware of the circumstances giving rise to the duty to act; AND 3. the ∆ could reasonably uphold the duty but failed to do so

Question 28

What is vicarious liability in a criminal context?

Answer 28

A person may be held liable for a crime committed by another simply because of the nature of the relationship between them (eg, the act is done by an employee or agent) *accomplice liability differs from vicarious liability because it requires affirmative action by the ∆ in the underlying crime

Question 29

HYPO: If a ∆ had delusions which, had they been true, rendered their conduct non-criminal, may they be acquitted?

Answer 29

YES. Under M'Naghten test for insanity, if a ∆ suffered from delusions, they may be acquitted if their actions would not have been criminal had the facts been as they believed them to be *loss of control because of mental illness is no defense under M'Naghten, but MAY be under the irresistible impulse test

Question 30

What is required to invoke a "necessity" defense in criminal law?

Answer 30

May be a defense to behavior that would otherwise be criminal IF the defendant reasonable believed their conduct was necessary to avoid a greater herm to themself or others *killing another to save property is NEVER a defense

Question 31

HYPO: If a police officer offers a ∆ only the opportunity to commit a crime, will entrapment be a defense?

Answer 31

NO. Merely offering the opportunity to commit a crime is not sufficient to constitute entrapment (eg, posing as a drug addict to a ∆ who is selling illegal drugs is NOT entrapment) *a ∆ cannot be entrapped by a private citizen who is not an officer or an officer's agent

Question 32

What are the four tests for an insanity defense?

Answer 32

1. M'Naghten Test 2. Irresistible Impulse Test 3. Durham (or Product) Test; AND 4. MPC Test

Question 33

When may NON-deadly force be used in self-defense?

Answer 33

If person has a reasonable belief that they are in imminent danger of unlawful bodily harm, they may use the amount of force in self-defense that is reasonably necessary to prevent such harm

Question 34

What are the 3 requirements for using DEADLY force in self-defense?

Answer 34

Deadly force may ONLY be used in self-defense if a person: 1. is not at fault (not the initial aggressor) 2. is confronted w/unlawful force against them; AND 3. reasonably believes they face an imminent threat of great bodily harm or death if they do not respond w/ deadly force *an initial aggressor may essentially obtain the right to use deadly force if they withdraw first and communicate their intent to withdraw to the other person, who attacks anyway

Question 35

Is there a general duty to retreat in the context of self-defense?

Answer 35

NO. The majority rule is that there is no duty to restate before using non-deadly OR deadly force in self-defense UNLESS the ∆ was the initial aggressor *under the minority view, there is a duty to retreat before using deadly force if retreat can be accomplished w/ complete safety

Question 36

When may deadly force be used to prevent a crime?

Answer 36

Under the traditional view, deadly force may not be used to prevent a crime Under the modern view - deadly force may only be used if reasonably necessary to prevent a "dangerous felony" posing risk to human life, (eg, burglary, robbery, arson)

Question 37

What are the two requirements for a "mistake of fact" defense to a crime?

Answer 37

A factual mistake is NOT. a defense to a crime UNELSS the ∆: 1. is charged w/ a crime that contains a mental state element (ie, a specific intent crime); AND 2. their mistake negated that required state of mind *any mistake of fact, reasonable or unreasonable, may be a defense to a specific intent crime, but only a reasonable mistake of fact may be a defense to a general intent crime

Question 38

When is "mistake of law" a defense to a crime?

Answer 38

Gen rule - "mistake of law" is NO defense to crime... HOWEVER, there are some rarely-applied exceptions, including when: 1. the statute making the conduct illegal was not reasonably available prior to commission of the crime 2. the ∆ reasonably relied on a judicial decision or statute later overturned; OR 3. the ∆ reasonably relied on some official interpretation or advice allowing the conduct *mistake of law may also be available if the mistake negates an essential element of the crime containing the requisite state of mind

Question 39

What are the 3 requirements for a "consent" defense to a criminal charge?

Answer 39

An effective consent defense requires a showing that: 1. the victim freely and voluntarily consented; 2. the victim was legally capable of consent; AND 3. no fraud was used in obtaining the victim's consent *consent as a defense differs from consent in the context of searches and seizures, where one may consent to waive their constitutional rights under the 4th amendment

Question 40

Do threats to property qualify for a duress defense to a criminal charge?

Answer 40

At common law - threats to property NOT sufficient for duress defense HOWEVER - MPC - allows for duress when there are threats to property, assuming the value of the property outweighs the harm done to society by commission of the crime

Question 41

What are the 2 requirements for an "entrapment" defense against a criminal charge?

Answer 41

The majority view is that entrapment is a defense to a criminal charge IF: 1. the gov actor(s) originated the criminal design; AND 2. the ∆ was no predisposed to committing the crime before initially being contacted by the gov *minority of courts today impose and objective standard rather than subjective, asking whether the gov's actions were likely to cause a reasonable person to commit the crime

Question 42

Which crimes require proof of SPECIFIC intent?

Answer 42

1. assault 2. attempt 3. burglary 4. conspiracy 5. embezzlement 6. false pretenses 7. first-degree premeditated murder 8. forgery 9. larceny 10. robbery 11. solicitation

Question 43

Which 2 crimes require MALICE to satisfy the mens rea element?

Answer 43

1. arson AND 2. common law murder *in context of common law murder, the malice is referred to as "malice aforethought"

Question 44

What crimes require proof of GENERAL intent?

Answer 44

1. battery 2. false imprisonment 3. kidnapping 4. rape

Question 45

What is "factual causation" in criminal law?

Answer 45

aka cause in fact - is when the result would not have happened but for the ∆'s conduct *both factual and proximate caution must exist for a ∆ to be criminally liable for their actions

Question 46

What is "proximate cause" in criminal law?

Answer 46

Asks whether the outcome was a "natural and probable consequence" of the ∆'s conduct (ie, no superseding factors cut the ∆ off from responsibility

Question 47

What is a "superseding factor" w/ regard to causation in criminal law?

Answer 47

Often described as an intervening act, is an unforeseeable, independent cause of the outcome It breaks the chain of proximate causation and shields ∆ from criminal liability *even if the ∆'s actions factually contributed to the outcome, a superseding factor Mayr believe them of liability because, as a matter of policy, they should not be held responsible

Question 48

HYPO: If a ∆ tries to kill a victim but ends up only inflicting minor injuries, but the victim receives negligent medical care and dies, will ∆ be liable for the death?

Answer 48

YES. When the ∆ intentionally caused harm to victim, it was a foreseeable risk that victim could then relieve negligent medical treatment *the ∆ may not have been liable if the victim had been intentionally mistreated by hospital staff and died as a result, which would not be considered a foreseeable risk

Question 49

Will a victim's preexisting condition constitute an intervening factor that breaks the chain of causation in criminal law?

Answer 49

NO. When a victim has some sort of preexisting condition that renders them at a higher risk for death - it will NOT cut off ∆'s criminal liability **similar to "eggshell plaintiff" rule in torts - a criminal ∆ "takes their victim as they find them

Question 50

HYPO: If a 3rd party commits an unforeseeable action at the same time as the ∆ acts, and each is sufficient to independently cause a victim's death, will the 3rd party's actions cut off the ∆ from liability?

Answer 50

YES. Generally, if a 3rd party's simultaneous action amounts to an independent, factual cause of the victim's death, it will constitute a superseding factor or intervening act deemed unforeseeable by the ∆

Question 51

What are the 2 requirements for a statute to survive a "vagueness" analysis in criminal law?

Answer 51

DPC requires: 1. fair warning, meaning the criminal statute gives notice to ppl of ordinary intelligence which conduct is illegal; AND 2. enforcement that is not arbitrary and discriminatory

Question 52

HYPO: If a ∆ believes their actions to be morally right, but they lack the capacity to understand the actions are wrong, may they be acquitted?

Answer 52

YES. Under the M'Naghten test for insanity, a ∆ who believes their actions are morally right but is incapable of recognizing that society considers the actions wrong may be acquitted

Question 53

What are the 2 requirements for when a PRIVATE person may use DEADLY force to make an arrest?

Answer 53

A private person may use deadly force ONLY if the arrestee is: 1. actually guilty of the offense committed; AND 2. poses a threat of death/serious bodily harm to others *a private person may use NON-deadly force if a crime was committed and they have reasonable grounds to believe the arrestee is guilty

Question 54

What is required to prove the defense of INVOLUNTARY intoxication?

Answer 54

Involuntary intoxication is a defense to a crime IF it rendered the ∆ insane w/in the jurisdiction's definition of insanity *intoxication is "involuntary" (not self-induced and voluntary) if the substance was taken w/out knowledge of its effects or under duress

Question 55

Under what circumstances does possession constitute an act?

Answer 55

To satisfy the actus reus element of a criminal statute that penalizes the possession of contraband, the ∆ generally need only have control of the item for a length of time sufficient to have had an opportunity to terminate the possession

Question 56

What is required to satisfy causation?

Answer 56

The ∆'s conduct must be the actual and proximate cause of the specified result of the crime

Question 57

What is the year and a day rule?

Answer 57

Under common law, the death of the victim must occur w/in one year and one day from the ∆'s wound inflicting conduct for a homicide prosecution to stand *many states have abolished application of this tule thru statute

Question 58

Is abandonment a defense to the crime of attempt?

Answer 58

Majority Rule: NO - once the conduct has gone beyond mere preparation abandonment is not a defense MPC: abandonment IS a defense to crime of attempt IF: 1. the w/drawal was completely voluntary and not made b/c of the difficulty of completing the crime or due to increased apprehension; AND 2. it is complete abandonment (ie, the ∆ is not just postponing their plans for another day or victim)

Question 59

When may self-defense be used as a defense by the initial aggressor?

Answer 59

An aggressor is one who "strikes the first blow" or commits a crime against the victim. The aggressor can regain the right of self-defense: 1. upon complete w/drawal perceived by the other party; OR 2. a sudden escalation to deadly force by the victim of the initial aggression

Question 60

Define "defense of others"

Answer 60

provides the right of a ∆ to protect a third party if the ∆ reasonably believes that the person they are protecting had the right to lawfully defend themself

Question 61

Is the defense of duress available for intentional killings?

Answer 61

NO. Duress may be a defense to ALL crimes except intentional homicide

Question 62

Is the defense of consent widely available?

Answer 62

generally NOT a defense UNLESS it negates an element of the offense

Question 63

What is a defense to the crime of attempt?

Answer 63

-Legal Impossibility: where the ∆ did all the things they intended to do, but their acts do not constitute a crime -Abandonment (under MPC): where the ∆ voluntarily and completely abandons their criminal plans *factual impossibility is NOT a viable defense to the crime of attempt

Question 64

What is the effect of a ∆ establishing that they were insane at the time of their criminal act?

Answer 64

NO CRIMINAL LIABILITY WILL BE IMPOSED

Question 65

Define "voluntary intoxication"?

Answer 65

When ∆ ingests an intoxicating substance by their own free will *voluntary intoxication is a defense to SPECIFIC intent crimes if it negates the state of mind required to commit the offense

Question 66

Involuntary intoxication definition

Answer 66

when ∆ ingests an intoxicant w/out knowledge of its nature or under duress *defense of involuntary intoxication is analyzed under the jurisdiction's insanity test

Question 67

What is the defense of "diminished capacity"?

Answer 67

Available if the ∆ can show that due to a mental defect short of insanity, they did not possess the requisite mental state for the crime charged *majority of states recognizing diminished capacity defense limit its application to specific intent crimes only

Question 68

Define the MPC intent standard "criminal negligence"

Answer 68

A person acts w/ criminal negligence when: 1. they should have been aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk; AND 2. their failure to perceive the risk is a gross deviation from a reasonable person standard

Question 69

Concurrence

Answer 69

guilty mental state and guilty act must occur simultaneously

Question 70

What are the 4 MPC categories of intent to satisfy mens rea?

Answer 70

1. purposefully 2. knowingly 3. recklessly AND 4. criminal negligence

Question 71

What are the 4 common law types of mens rea?

Answer 71

1. specific intent 2. general intent 3. malice AND 4. strict liability

Question 72

Define MPC intent standard "purposely"

Answer 72

A person acts purposely if their conscious objective is to engage in the conduct or cause a certain result

Question 73

Define MPC intent standard "knowingly"

Answer 73

A person acts knowingly when they are aware that their conduct is of a particular nature or will likely cause a certain result to occur

Question 74

Describe the MPC intent standard "recklessly"

Answer 74

A person acts "recklessly" when: 1. they consciously disregard a substantial and unjustifiable risk; AND 2. their conduct is a gross deviation from a reasonable person standard