Handout Vocabulary Flashcards
(191 cards)
1
Q
Action
A
doing something.
All actions have intention.
crimes usually require that you DO something (except for crimes of omission)
2
Q
Movement
A
Something that happens unintentionally/involuntarily.
Think of when Decina was having a seizure. His arm-flailing is a movement.
3
Q
Intent
A
All actions have an intention, except when the action is involuntary (made under duress/coercion). Or said another way: coercion doesn’t produce intentional or unintentional results.
4
Q
Voluntary
A
An action that is done with purpose. Done in alignment with your will.
Opposite from an involuntary action.
Example: You pass the salt to the person who requests it at dinner.
5
Q
Involuntary
A
An action that is against your will. Coercion is the reason it is involuntary.
Opposite from a voluntary action.
Example: a robber coerces you to hand your wallet to him.
6
Q
Intentional
A
an action done with purpose.
Remember: All actions have intention, except when the action is involuntary (made under duress/coercion).
Example: While playing catch, you intend to throw the ball into your friend’s glove. Thats exactly what happens.
7
Q
Unintentional
A
An act that is done not on purpose. It wasn’t your goal. Considered an “accident.”
Remember: All actions have intention, except when the action is involuntary (made under duress/coercion).
Example: While playing catch, you intend to throw the ball into your friend’s glove. The ball actually goes through the glass window behind your friend.
8
Q
Not Intentional
A
An act that is done not on purpose, but also wasn’t a clear accident.
An incidental that was foreseen, but not the goal of your action.
Remember: All actions have intention, except when the action is involuntary (made under duress/coercion).
Example: While playing catch, you intend to throw the ball into your friend’s glove. He says, “be carefull of the glass window behind me.” You reply, “I see it, but I won’t hit it.” The ball actually goes through the glass window behind your friend.
9
Q
Reasonable
A
An unintentional act that could be avoided only with extreme caution.
an act that is excusable.
A person who acts “normally.” Like others would reasonably act.
10
Q
Foreseeable
A
an act that could have been seen by a reasonable person.
11
Q
Unforeseen Result
A
an incidental that was not seen by the actor.
If the act was unforeseable, then it is an unintentional act (accidental).
If the act was foreseable, then it may be reckless if we can impune that the actor must have known, even if he said he didn’t know.
12
Q
Civil/ordinary Negligence
A
in unintentional acts, unexcusable act are considered civil negligence. Avoidable with an ordinary amount of care.
Contrast to culpable/gross/criminal negligence
13
Q
Criminal/Culpable/Gross Negligence
A
Greater than (more reckless than) ordinary/civil negligence. Found in not intentional acts. contrast to culpable/gross/criminal negligence
14
Q
Accident
A
unintentional acts are considered “accidents.”
The consequences of which actions are unforeseeable.
An accident may be considered either reasonable, and therefore excusable, or unreasonable, or therefore inexcusable.
15
Q
Recklessness
A
Indifference to consequences; indifference to the safety and rights of others. Wantonness; more than ordinary (civil) negligence.
Associate with not intentional acts.
16
Q
Legal Duty to Act
A
legal responsibility to act:
(1) statutory (bad samaritan laws)
(2) status/relationship (marriage, parent-child)
(3) contractual (employment)
(4) voluntary assumption (flippo) /seclusion (oliver)
In Flippo, it was the father’s voluntary assumption that contributed to his recklessness behavior.
17
Q
An example of special status relations
A
Definition: employment, service, marriage, parent-child.
Employment: hired lifeguard to save people when he see’s them drowning.
Service: a doctor performing free exams to patients in a clinic where he is serving.
Marriage anti-example: a husband locks his wife in the closet and neglects to feed her.
Parent-child anti-example: a parent who locks their child in the basement so they cannot ever leave and doesn’t teach them anything.
18
Q
Voluntary Assumption of Care
A
Definition: when you do not have the duty to take care of someone, but you voluntarily take on that responsibility.
Example: Flippo (father) voluntarily told others not to call an ambulance; he would call so they could tend to the victim.
19
Q
Bad Samaritan Law
A
Minority approach to Affirmative Duty.
Laws that punish those that do nothing when they witness a crime.
comprised of ~10 states.
The imperiled may demand the aid of ANY bystander who knows the imperiled’s situation and can render aid at that moment without incurring personal risk.
Only bystanders close in space and time to the emergency are accountable
Different from “Good Samaritan Laws” which protect helpers from civil liability who botch a rescue.
20
Q
Misprision of Felony
A
The concealment of a felony that a person knows of, but did not commit or assist.
Elements:
(1) Knowledge of felony
(2) Reasonable opportunity to disclose the felony without harm
(3) Failure to report felony
Generally a threat to 5th amendment. Used as a negotiation tool.
Formal in existence, but not practical existence
No conviction since 1878
Federal misprision of felony happens with active concealment, not merely failure to report.
21
Q
Demurrer
A
A defense pleading that contests only the legal merits of the case.
22
Q
Cross-appeal
A
Ruling was in your favor, but you still contest the results.
Example: Decina won in the appellate court that the doctor’s testimony shouldn’t have been admitted = retrial.
He still appealed (cross-appeal) that the trial judge errored in not granting a demurrer for grand jury indictment (he didn’t want to be there at all).
23
Q
Sustain
A
when an appellate court says that the decision will be upheld (not changed).
24
Q
Overrule
A
to change or overturn a final judgement of a lower court
25
Concur
The overall decision is correct, but I dissagree with the reasoning (or want to add more/different reasons).
26
Arrest Judgement
Arrest of judgment means the court’s refusal to render its decision, or a postponement of its judgment after a verdict has been reached, due to some error or defect appearing on the face of the record, such that if the decision is made, it would result in the reversal of such judgment.
27
Standard of Review
Standard of review is the amount of deference given by one court in reviewing a decision of a lower court or tribunal. United States courts apply three standards of review namely,
(1) de novo review,
(2) arbitrary and capricious standard and
(3) clearly erroneous standard.
28
Sufficiency of the evidence
determining sufifciency of the evidence during appellate review.
The evidence is examined in a way that is most favorable to the state.
If any substantial evidence exists, the court must affirm.
If no rational juror could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, then reverse.
jury verdicts are PRESUMPTIVELY VALID and are only reversed with plain error.
29
Suspended Sentence
A conviction is reached, but the sentence is either delayed (pending good behavior) or completely erased.
Conviction stays on your record, but you don't have to serve time, pay a fine, etc.
Think of Flippo's; their sentences (son and dad) were both suspended pending good behavior of 1 year.
If they do something stupid within a year, the sentence of their manslaughter comes back in addition to the new crime they commit.
30
Prosecutorial Discretion
A prosecuting attorney has power on various matters including those relating to choosing whether or not to bring criminal charges, deciding the nature of charges, plea bargaining and sentence recommendation. This discretion of the prosecuting attorney is called prosecutorial discretion.
31
Jury Nullification
Jury's can decide to nullify the guilt of a defendant whom they know to have committed the crime.
Trial judges are precluded from explicitly telling them so (State v. Maloney).
Nullification is the jury's prerogative, not the defendant's right ( People v. Goetz
32
MPC Sec. 210.4
NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE
(1) Criminal homicide constitutes negligent homicide when it is committed negligently.
(2) Negligent homicide is a felony of the third degree
33
Cal. Penal Code Sec. 654
Acts punishable by different provisions; Effect of acquittal or conviction
A crime that is punishible in different ways will be punished under the way that provides the longest potential term of imprisonment
Can't be punished for 1 > provision.
Can't be given parole if any of the provisions deny it.
34
Double Jeopardy
being prosecuted twice for the same offense (if you didn't ask for it).
Protected by the 5th amendment.
35
Specific Knowledge
?
36
General Knowledge
?
37
Specific Intent
Crimes where the intent was to accomplish a greater goal.
Voluntary intoxication IS an excuse from these crimes.
in the vertical notion, Specific intent is at the top and describes "purposely" (which lies above knowledge, recklessness, and negligence respectively.)
Horizontal notion, one acts now, with the intent to accomplish some other act in the immediate future
Examples: murder, burglary, larceny
Note: assault is never SI
38
General Intent
Crimes without intent to accomplish greater goal.
Voluntary intoxication is not an excuse.
Assault is always a GI crime.
Present whenever there is specific intent.
Examples: arson, assualt, kidnapping, rape, involuntary manslaughter, voluntary manslaughter, second-degree implied-malice murder
39
De Novo
"of anew"
A fresh look in court unbound by other courts conclusions on matters involving legal standards.
Applies to undisputed facts where appellate courts have nothing to defer to.
If the facts are disputed, they defer to the trial courts judgement (because they were there)
40
Deference
To yield to someone or something else, at least for a time.
| Respect for previous judgement, proposal, decision, etc.
41
Interlocutory Appeal
An appeal that occurs before the trial court's final ruling on the entire case. They involve legal points that are necessary to determine the case.
Prosecutors are afforded more leniency because they can't offend double jeopardy even if a jury acquits a defendant unfairly.
Defendants rarely afforded IA's because they can always appeal after judgment for a retrial (if they want), or they might be acquitted notwithstanding the error.
42
Information
An affidavit in which the prosecutor alleges the probable cause to support charges against the defendant.
Used to bypass the grand jury (which is costly).
Only felonies are justified to convene a grand jury CPC §737.
43
Complaint
The pleading that commences a legal action.
| Prosecutors file the document against a defendant
44
Preliminary Hearing
A pretrial hearing to determine whether probable cause exists to hold a defendant for trial on a criminal charge.
The primary function of the preliminary hearing is for the judge, or magistrate-judge, to hear evidence to determine whether sufficient evidence exists to find probable cause both that the offense charged was committed and that the defendant committed it.
45
Grand Jury
A body of (usu. 16 to 23) people who are chosen to sit permanently for at least a month — and sometimes a year — and who, in ex parte proceedings, decide whether to issue indictments.
46
Affirm
When an appellate court states that the lower courts decision was correct.
47
voluntary intoxication
A complete defense against specific intent crimes.
| Defendants use involuntary intoxication to say that they could not have formed
48
Mens Rea
"State of mind"
Necessary for the prosecution to prove for crimes that are not Strict-liability.
Where no subjective criminality is required, the offenses state that negligence will suffice as proof of guilt.
Ex: murder requires malice aforethought – even if it wasn't intentional, prosecution only needs to prove extreme recklessness.
49
Voluntary Manslaughter
an otherwise malicious killing that is performed either (1) while in the understandable throes of a heat of passion provoked by the victim; or (2) in "imperfect" self-defense.
base term of 6 years (compared to 15-life/death for murder)
Relate to EED/Heat of passion
Related cases: Greene .
Requires adequate provocation under CPC §192
50
Excuse
There is something wrong with the defendant.
examples: I suffer from EED, I "snapped," etc.
51
Justification
There is something wrong with the victim.
(he had it coming)
Examples: He was going to kill me, he threatened me, he provoked me
52
Extreme Emotional Disturbance (EED)
restructuring of the old common law concept of 'heat of passion'
Mental trauma may not be immediately apparent, yet may diminish a person's mental capacity in ways relevant to society's determination of criminal culpability.
KRS 507.020 - It's murder if you intentionally cause death "except if he acted under the influence of EED for which there was a reasonable explanation or excuse . . . " determined from the viewpoint of a person in the defendant's circumstances.
EED = Model Penal Code
(1) If EED is made an issue the jury instruction should be given; (2) it them becomes an element of the crime, (3) courts will then test sufficiency of the proof; (4) if it passes, the jury will decide
53
Heat of passion
California Penal Code
older concept applies only to immediate actions where "hot blood" prevented action
most of the time requires that a person "snaps."
To reduce murder to voluntary manslaughter, EED is an excuse if the victim is the provoker
54
malice
From blacks:
1. (express malice)The intent, without justification or excuse, to commit a wrongful act. 2. (implied malice) Reckless disregard of the law or of a person's legal rights. 3. Ill will; wickedness of heart.
Lack of malice is an excuse from murder, but may qualify for manslaughter.
55
Habeas Corpus
Latin - “that you have the body”
A collateral attack for a defendant in a criminal case once all remedies have been exhausted.
A writ employed to bring a person before a court, most frequently to ensure that the person's imprisonment or detention is not illegal
56
parasitic speech
trades on, depends on, or derives its meaning from "normal" speech, but is not quite the same in that it lacks the seriousness of normal speech.
57
provocation
a sort of hybrid self-defense and insanity (as in, "the victim made me so mad I lost control and killed in a rage"
jury decides if there was sufficient provocation
Evidence for provocation is different for EED than "Heat of Passion"
What is adequate provocation in CA?
(1) there must be a provoker
(2) before "cooling off"
(3) provoker is the one killed, except
(a) wrong person killed by mistake
(b) wrong person killed by accident
(c) (No longer good law) person killed was aiding and abetting the provoker
58
motive
The why behind a crime.
It's not possible to kill for the reason of killing, or to steal for the reason of stealing.
Motives are selfish and dark in nature.
59
diminished capacity
"Because of who I am, I never can form that required mental state"
lack of mental capacity to form required mental state (such as malice) for specific intent crimes.
Discarded in 1982 as a matter of public policy.
Abolished by prop 8 along with non-statutory manslaughter entirely
60
diminished actuality
"at that moment in time, I did not form the required mental state"
Defense to SI crime.
61
unhinged
Snapped. The straw that broke the camels back.
Even if the act is small (provocation by words only) you may be able to see history of abuse that led up to that one moment.
Not the same as insanity
62
insanity
complete defense.
"I did it, but lacked the capacity to respond to certain ethical arguments about 'the good'
Unable to distinguish right from wrong.
18 USC §17 (1984)
63
provocation via words alone
some jurisdictions (Maryland) explicitly preclude provocation claims that are based onwords alone.
```
Some jx (California) say "there is no specific type of provocation required ... and ... verbal
provocation may be sufficient" (People v. Wickersham). Courts then turn the matter to jurors to decide what is sufficient.
```
In California, verbal provocations that support voluntary manslaughter instructions and convictions are narrowly construed, generally confined to repeated sexual taunts or admissions of infidelity by an unfaithful spouse. People v. Berry
64
burden of production
Defendant is required to raise slight evidence of provocation or heat of passion.
Then the prosecutor has burden of persuasion to prove that killing didn't have anything to do with EED.
In NY, defendant has burden of production and burden of persuasion (preponderance of evidence) (like an affirmative defense)
65
burden of persuasion
Defendant is required to raise slight evidence of provocation or heat of passion.
Then the prosecutor has burden of persuasion to prove that killing didn't have anything to do with EED.
66
appeal as of right
An appeal to a higher court from which permission need not be first obtained.
example:
Federal Habeus Corpus: Requires (1) final trial judgement; (2) appeal as of right has been decided against defendant; (3) State high court has affirmed ruling or denied review. [basically, you must have exhausted your claims in state court before you can remove to federal court]
67
preserved claims
party makes a claim (movement or objection) in court to preserve it in the record.
If you do not object to something in trial, you lose the ability to appeal that claim afterward
68
Nonstatutory voluntary manslaughter
Learned from People v. Small
different from statutory definition of voluntary manslaughter in that malice may be rebutted by a showing of diminished mental capacity instead of the provocative conduct of the victim.
Discarded as matter of public policy.
Diminished capacity is no longer valid in California.
69
Perfect self-defense
Negates murder charge (complete defense).
Complete dfense. Emminant threat.
Reasonable mistakes about force (toy gun, unloaded gun) are justified.
70
Imperfect self-defense
D believes deadly force is necessary, but is unreasonable.
May be an overreaction (force must be proportional); defense is only semi-successful.
Partial-Excuse to specific intent crimes
Does not work for general intent crimes
Partial excuse, not partial justification.
NY: murder (no such thing as imperfect SD)
CAL: Voluntary manslaughter
MPC: Negligence homicide (unreasonable) or Manslaughter (super unreasonable)
71
Reasonable v. unreasonable
Reasonable self-defense = justified. See perfect SD
| Unreasonable SD = Not justified. See imperfect SD
72
Complete defense
See perfect self-defense.
73
Partial defense
See imperfect self-defense.
| Make up the majority of our trials b/c they are "on the boarder" of what is justified.
74
Coward
taking no action when there is risk
75
Ruthless
Taking action when there is no risk (bombing from jet when enemy has no air defenses)
76
Comity
The legal principle that political entities will mutually recognize each other’s legislative, executive, and judicial acts.
Jurisdictions will reciprocate each other’s judgments out of respect.
77
Courage/Brave
Taking action when there is risk.
78
Objective
Actually necessary or reasonable.
| perspective of observable world.
79
Subjective
Defendant must have subjectively believed that deadly force was necessary for both Perfect and Imperfect Self-Defense.
Perspective of the individual; what they believed.
Most jury instructions aren't wholly subjective (Goetz); can't get off the hook b/c only you thought it was justified.
80
Imminent threat
Can use deadly force
81
First opportunity or preemptive strike
```
Threat isn't imminent just yet.
Not allowed for retaliation.
Allowed in emergency response.
State v. Shroeder - Imminance defense didn't work.
Allowed in other cases
```
82
Extradition
Goetz surrendered in New Hampshire, but WAIVED EXTRADITION to be brought back to NY where he had shot the boys in the subway.
83
Perjury
giving a false oath during sworn testimony.
Only a testifying witness can commit perjury.
Think of Goetz
84
Mistake
BAD PLANNING
taking one thing for another (failure of knowledge/planning).
You have competence and committment to make the right choice.
Meant to do what you did (to a certain point).
Ex: shooting someone else’s donkey that you thought was your own
85
Accident
BAD EXECUTION
failure of execution/performance (something befalls the actor)
Ex: I was aiming at my donkey but missed and hit your donkey
86
Diminished actuality
you did not, in that situation, form an intention even if you are capable of it.
Includes mental ilness that doesn't rise to level of insanity.
Anger does not count (only mental illness, defects, etc.)
87
Diminished capacity
You were never capable of forming the intent
88
Insanity
Affirmative Defense to any crime (specific intent AND general intent).
Insane people are deemed UNABLE to commit a crime as a matter of law in California.
M’Naghten test:
unable to understand the nature and quality of the criminal act; or
you cannot distinguish right from wrong when the act was committed.
think of Elmore case
89
Willful
To will an outcome presupposes a knowledge of the outcome (intending the outcome).
Check v. US - Pilot charged with WILLFULLY evading taxes.
90
Unreasonable v. Delusion
Unreasonable: No basis for it; Hard to find one that isn’t grounded in mental illness.
There is no such thing as unreasonable mistake.
JFK, Jr. example:
Mistake is pushing the button he thought would fix the plane, but instead put the plane in a tailspin (wrong decisicion).
If he didn't know how to fly, then it was reckless (knowledge you don't have can't fail).
91
Delusion v. Illusion
Delusion: Inner; Something is wrong with me
Illusion: Mistake; Something is wrong with 76. what you saw; Anyone can fall for it
(Like a stick’s bent/straight reflection in the water)
92
Malum in se
(pre-legal wrong) Crime is wrong in and of itself.
| Challenges morality
93
Malum prohibitum
Wrong because the law says it is.
| Doesn’t challenge morality
94
Grand jury
Simple majority required.
Allowed to consider inadmissible evidence.
expensive to convene (month at a time) to investigate and charge crimes.
95
Indictment
Received from judge or grand jury.
Does not charge a crime.
All evidence allowed (even inadmissible evidence) to determine Probable Cause.
Probable Cause Standard of proof is very very low.
96
Jury instructions
```
important to get right so the Jury knows how to think.
Objective instruction (reasonable man in D's situation) vs. Subjective instruction (D believed his actions necessary)
```
97
Jeopardy
attached in bench trial when the first evidence is presented.
Attached in jury trial when the jury is empaneled.
Multiple grand juries (Goetz) do not offend double jeopardy b/c there hasn't been a trial yet.
98
Bifurcation
Two phases to a trial when insanity is introduced. Guilt and Insanity.
1st phase, D's are presumed innocent and sane.
2nd phase, D's have burden of proof by preponderance of the evidence.
Evidence of insanity can be used to show diminished actuality.
99
Not guilty by reason of insanity
Bifurcation: in CA, guilt is determined first, then insanity is considered in the second phase.
insanity is not considered during guilt phase, b/c you can't use insanity to try and get a lesser crime in the first phase, then say insanity makes you not guilty at all in the second phase.
M’Naghten test, you must be:
1) unable to understand the nature and quality of the criminal act, OR
2) you cannot distinguish right from wrong when the act was committed.
100
Natural and probable
Doctrine found in CPN 3.02.
Crimes that are reasonably foreseeable from the target crime are natural and probable.
used to find rear actors guilty of non-target crimes.
101
Reasonably foreseeable
think of Natural and Probable Consequences Doctrine (3.02).
A rear actor can be held for a non-target crime if it is a "natural and probable consequence of the target crime.
Simple Assault --> Battery = Yes
simple Assault --> Murder = No
102
Accomplice
See complicity. Aka aiding and abetting
103
Aiding & abetting
See complicity. Aka Accomplice liability, helper
Remember, there is no such crime as "aiding and abetting." You are guilty of Murder through the theory of Aiding and Abetting.
104
complicity
Elements:
(1) The Rear Actor KNOWS the Front Actor’s criminal purpose;
(2) The Rear Actor INTENDS to further that purpose (Specific intent for target offense)AND (mens rea)
(3) 4. AIDS or encourages that purpose (actus reus)
Complicity is not Joint Principality.
Derivative liability makes the helper equally liable for the crime committed
105
helper
ones who assist (in act or encouragement) of a crime. Helpers do not commit elements of the crime.
One who commits elements of the crime are JOINT PRINCIPALS, not helpers
106
action v. encouragement
It is possible to ACT with indifference. (I sold him a gun, but I didn't care what he did with it)
It is not possible to verbally ENCOURAGE with indifference. (I said, "Do it!" but I didn't mean for him to do it")
107
specific intent v. knowledge
For serious crimes, the conspirator's KNOWLEDGE is sufficient to be guilty of serious crimes like murder (3.02 crime); does not need the SPECIFIC INTENT.
For non serious crimes, indifference is a valid excuse (People v. Lauria - prostitution, Beeman - robbery of sisters jewels)
108
perpetration by means
using an innocent agent to commit a crime.
This manipulation can happen:
1) through coercion;
2) when the front actor is duped as to material facts; OR
3) the rear actor uses a not fully-autonomous person (child or insane person)
109
innocent agent
A minor, insane person, labrador retriever, etc.
An innocent agent cannot be held as the principal for crimes committed. The rear actor will become the principal by using the innocent agent as a tool.
Think of the German sisters case, Othelo case
110
Target offense (predicate offense)
Think of CALJIC No. 3.01
| The crime that was planned by the perpetrator and conspirators
111
Excess offense (surplus offense)
Think of CALJIC No. 3.02
| Not the target crime, but the crime committed by the perpetrator in excess of the target crime
112
CALJIC No. 3.01
a person who aids and abets the commission of a crime is a principal in the crime and shares the guilt of the actual perpetrator.
Happens when the target crime is completed, with the help of the accomplice.
113
CALJIC No. 3.02
Natural and Probable Consequences Doctrine
The non-target offense.
Referenced when a crime was committed by front actor, but was not part of the original plan.
There must be a “REASONABLY APPARENT” connection between the target offense and the excess crime to hold the accomplice for the non-target offense
114
Beeman test
In determining accomplice liability:
The rear actor:
(1) acts with KNOWLEDGE of the perpetrator’s unlawful purpose;
(2) the INTENT or purpose of committing, encouraging, or facilitating the commission of the crime; AND
(3) AIDS, promotes, encourages, or instigates the commission of the crime by act or advice
115
Cal. Penal Code sec 654(a)
In California, you can have multiple charges and multiple convictions stemming from the same facts, but not multiple punishments
116
Personal defenses
In grafting, defenses the front actor brings up (self defense, HOP/EED, voluntary intoxication) do may not apply to the rear.
In Derivative liability, no crime from the front actor means no crime for the rear actor.
117
Mens rea
"guilty mind"
The mindset.
Intention (specific or general)
118
Actus reus
"Guilty act"
Doing something.
The elements that make up the crime
119
Derivative liability
Derivative liability: based partly on the defendant’s own actions.
120
Grafting approach
Relating to Accomplice liability.
| If the front actor commits murder, the rear actor will be held for murder.
121
MPC sec 5.01(3)
Relating to accomplice liability
Think ATTEMPT.
If the front actor commits murder, the rear actor will be held for attempted murder
122
Derivative v. vicarious
Derivative liability: based partly on the defendant’s own actions.
Vicarious liability: based on the defendant’s relationship with someone else.
123
Consolidated appeal
Two people appealing together.
| Think of Fountain and Silverstein
124
Watson standard
If error is of a non-constitutional magnitude, appellate court asks whether the prosecutor has demonstrated that there is a reasonable probability that the guilty verdict was not caused by the error.
125
Chapman standard
If error is of a constitutional magnitude, appellate court asks whether the prosecution has demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that the guilty verdict was not caused by error.
126
Harmless error v. reversible error
We're Entitled to a fair trial, not a perfect one
127
Sua sponte
of one's own accord; voluntarily.
In Falia, the court concludes that a sua sponte instruction is necessary to minimize the risk that the jury will “indulge in unguided speculation”
128
Real party in interest
The person who's situation we are really interested in analyzing.
Rear actor in cases of accomplice liability.
129
Conspiracy
Elements:
1) Communication between front and rear actor (nod, wink, etc.)
2) Specific intent
3) Overt ACT (Small gesture converting words to acts)
130
Perfect self-defense
Negates murder charge (complete defense).
Complete dfense. Emminant threat.
Reasonable mistakes about force (toy gun, unloaded gun) are justified.
131
Imperfect self-defense
D believes deadly force is necessary, but is unreasonable.
May be an overreaction (force must be proportional); defense is only semi-successful.
Partial-Excuse to specific intent crimes
Does not work for general intent crimes
Partial excuse, not partial justification.
NY: murder (no such thing as imperfect SD)
CAL: Voluntary manslaughter
MPC: Negligence homicide (unreasonable) or Manslaughter (super unreasonable)
132
Reasonable v. unreasonable
Reasonable self-defense = justified. See perfect SD
| Unreasonable SD = Not justified. See imperfect SD
133
Complete defense
See perfect self-defense.
134
Partial defense
See imperfect self-defense.
| Make up the majority of our trials b/c they are "on the boarder" of what is justified.
135
Coward
taking no action when there is risk
136
Ruthless
Taking action when there is no risk (bombing from jet when enemy has no air defenses)
137
Comity
The legal principle that political entities will mutually recognize each other’s legislative, executive, and judicial acts.
Jurisdictions will reciprocate each other’s judgments out of respect.
138
Courage/Brave
Taking action when there is risk.
139
Objective
Actually necessary or reasonable.
| perspective of observable world.
140
Subjective
Defendant must have subjectively believed that deadly force was necessary for both Perfect and Imperfect Self-Defense.
Perspective of the individual; what they believed.
Most jury instructions aren't wholly subjective (Goetz); can't get off the hook b/c only you thought it was justified.
141
Imminent threat
Can use deadly force
142
First opportunity or preemptive strike
```
Threat isn't imminent just yet.
Not allowed for retaliation.
Allowed in emergency response.
State v. Shroeder - Imminance defense didn't work.
Allowed in other cases
```
143
Extradition
Goetz surrendered in New Hampshire, but WAIVED EXTRADITION to be brought back to NY where he had shot the boys in the subway.
144
Perjury
giving a false oath during sworn testimony.
Only a testifying witness can commit perjury.
Think of Goetz
145
Mistake
BAD PLANNING
taking one thing for another (failure of knowledge/planning).
You have competence and committment to make the right choice.
Meant to do what you did (to a certain point).
Ex: shooting someone else’s donkey that you thought was your own
146
Accident
BAD EXECUTION
failure of execution/performance (something befalls the actor)
Ex: I was aiming at my donkey but missed and hit your donkey
147
Diminished actuality
you did not, in that situation, form an intention even if you are capable of it.
Includes mental ilness that doesn't rise to level of insanity.
Anger does not count (only mental illness, defects, etc.)
148
Diminished capacity
You were never capable of forming the intent
149
Insanity
Affirmative Defense to any crime (specific intent AND general intent).
Insane people are deemed UNABLE to commit a crime as a matter of law in California.
M’Naghten test:
unable to understand the nature and quality of the criminal act; or
you cannot distinguish right from wrong when the act was committed.
think of Elmore case
150
Willful
To will an outcome presupposes a knowledge of the outcome (intending the outcome).
Check v. US - Pilot charged with WILLFULLY evading taxes.
151
Unreasonable v. Delusion
Unreasonable: No basis for it; Hard to find one that isn’t grounded in mental illness.
There is no such thing as unreasonable mistake.
JFK, Jr. example:
Mistake is pushing the button he thought would fix the plane, but instead put the plane in a tailspin (wrong decisicion).
If he didn't know how to fly, then it was reckless (knowledge you don't have can't fail).
152
Delusion v. Illusion
Delusion: Inner; Something is wrong with me
Illusion: Mistake; Something is wrong with 76. what you saw; Anyone can fall for it
(Like a stick’s bent/straight reflection in the water)
153
Malum in se
(pre-legal wrong) Crime is wrong in and of itself.
| Challenges morality
154
Malum prohibitum
Wrong because the law says it is.
| Doesn’t challenge morality
155
Grand jury
Simple majority required.
Allowed to consider inadmissible evidence.
expensive to convene (month at a time) to investigate and charge crimes.
156
Indictment
Received from judge or grand jury.
Does not charge a crime.
All evidence allowed (even inadmissible evidence) to determine Probable Cause.
Probable Cause Standard of proof is very very low.
157
Jury instructions
```
important to get right so the Jury knows how to think.
Objective instruction (reasonable man in D's situation) vs. Subjective instruction (D believed his actions necessary)
```
158
Jeopardy
attached in bench trial when the first evidence is presented.
Attached in jury trial when the jury is empaneled.
Multiple grand juries (Goetz) do not offend double jeopardy b/c there hasn't been a trial yet.
159
Bifurcation
Two phases to a trial when insanity is introduced. Guilt and Insanity.
1st phase, D's are presumed innocent and sane.
2nd phase, D's have burden of proof by preponderance of the evidence.
Evidence of insanity can be used to show diminished actuality.
160
Not guilty by reason of insanity
Bifurcation: in CA, guilt is determined first, then insanity is considered in the second phase.
insanity is not considered during guilt phase, b/c you can't use insanity to try and get a lesser crime in the first phase, then say insanity makes you not guilty at all in the second phase.
M’Naghten test, you must be:
1) unable to understand the nature and quality of the criminal act, OR
2) you cannot distinguish right from wrong when the act was committed.
161
Natural and probable
Doctrine found in CPN 3.02.
Crimes that are reasonably foreseeable from the target crime are natural and probable.
used to find rear actors guilty of non-target crimes.
162
Reasonably foreseeable
think of Natural and Probable Consequences Doctrine (3.02).
A rear actor can be held for a non-target crime if it is a "natural and probable consequence of the target crime.
Simple Assault --> Battery = Yes
simple Assault --> Murder = No
163
Accomplice
See complicity. Aka aiding and abetting
164
Aiding & abetting
See complicity. Aka Accomplice liability, helper
Remember, there is no such crime as "aiding and abetting." You are guilty of Murder through the theory of Aiding and Abetting.
165
complicity
Elements:
(1) The Rear Actor KNOWS the Front Actor’s criminal purpose;
(2) The Rear Actor INTENDS to further that purpose (Specific intent for target offense)AND (mens rea)
(3) 4. AIDS or encourages that purpose (actus reus)
Complicity is not Joint Principality.
Derivative liability makes the helper equally liable for the crime committed
166
helper
ones who assist (in act or encouragement) of a crime. Helpers do not commit elements of the crime.
One who commits elements of the crime are JOINT PRINCIPALS, not helpers
167
action v. encouragement
It is possible to ACT with indifference. (I sold him a gun, but I didn't care what he did with it)
It is not possible to verbally ENCOURAGE with indifference. (I said, "Do it!" but I didn't mean for him to do it")
168
specific intent v. knowledge
For serious crimes, the conspirator's KNOWLEDGE is sufficient to be guilty of serious crimes like murder (3.02 crime); does not need the SPECIFIC INTENT.
For non serious crimes, indifference is a valid excuse (People v. Lauria - prostitution, Beeman - robbery of sisters jewels)
169
perpetration by means
using an innocent agent to commit a crime.
This manipulation can happen:
1) through coercion;
2) when the front actor is duped as to material facts; OR
3) the rear actor uses a not fully-autonomous person (child or insane person)
170
innocent agent
A minor, insane person, labrador retriever, etc.
An innocent agent cannot be held as the principal for crimes committed. The rear actor will become the principal by using the innocent agent as a tool.
Think of the German sisters case, Othelo case
171
Target offense (predicate offense)
Think of CALJIC No. 3.01
| The crime that was planned by the perpetrator and conspirators
172
Excess offense (surplus offense)
Think of CALJIC No. 3.02
| Not the target crime, but the crime committed by the perpetrator in excess of the target crime
173
CALJIC No. 3.01
a person who aids and abets the commission of a crime is a principal in the crime and shares the guilt of the actual perpetrator.
Happens when the target crime is completed, with the help of the accomplice.
174
CALJIC No. 3.02
Natural and Probable Consequences Doctrine
The non-target offense.
Referenced when a crime was committed by front actor, but was not part of the original plan.
There must be a “REASONABLY APPARENT” connection between the target offense and the excess crime to hold the accomplice for the non-target offense
175
Beeman test
In determining accomplice liability:
The rear actor:
(1) acts with KNOWLEDGE of the perpetrator’s unlawful purpose;
(2) the INTENT or purpose of committing, encouraging, or facilitating the commission of the crime; AND
(3) AIDS, promotes, encourages, or instigates the commission of the crime by act or advice
176
Cal. Penal Code sec 654(a)
In California, you can have multiple charges and multiple convictions stemming from the same facts, but not multiple punishments
177
Personal defenses
In grafting, defenses the front actor brings up (self defense, HOP/EED, voluntary intoxication) do may not apply to the rear.
In Derivative liability, no crime from the front actor means no crime for the rear actor.
178
Mens rea
"guilty mind"
The mindset.
Intention (specific or general)
179
Actus reus
"Guilty act"
Doing something.
The elements that make up the crime
180
Derivative liability
Derivative liability: based partly on the defendant’s own actions.
181
Grafting approach
Relating to Accomplice liability.
| If the front actor commits murder, the rear actor will be held for murder.
182
MPC sec 5.01(3)
Relating to accomplice liability
Think ATTEMPT.
If the front actor commits murder, the rear actor will be held for attempted murder
183
Derivative v. vicarious
Derivative liability: based partly on the defendant’s own actions.
Vicarious liability: based on the defendant’s relationship with someone else.
184
Consolidated appeal
Two people appealing together.
| Think of Fountain and Silverstein
185
Watson standard
If error is of a non-constitutional magnitude, appellate court asks whether the prosecutor has demonstrated that there is a reasonable probability that the guilty verdict was not caused by the error.
186
Chapman standard
If error is of a constitutional magnitude, appellate court asks whether the prosecution has demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that the guilty verdict was not caused by error.
187
Harmless error v. reversible error
We're Entitled to a fair trial, not a perfect one
188
Sua sponte
of one's own accord; voluntarily.
In Falia, the court concludes that a sua sponte instruction is necessary to minimize the risk that the jury will “indulge in unguided speculation”
189
Real party in interest
The person who's situation we are really interested in analyzing.
Rear actor in cases of accomplice liability.
190
Different juries, different verdicts
.
191
Conspiracy
Elements:
1) Communication between front and rear actor (nod, wink, etc.)
2) Specific intent
3) Overt ACT (Small gesture converting words to acts)
