Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM


Top Flashcards (Certified)
All Flashcards

Criminal Law > Intro to Criminal Law > Flashcards

Intro to Criminal Law Flashcards

(93 cards)

Start Studying
1
Q

5 Mental States of Culpability

A 
Purpose
Knowing
Reckless
Negligent
Strict Liability
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

purposeful

A

an actor has the conscious object to cause a result

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

knowing

A

an actor is aware of a practically certain result or high probability result

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

reckless

A

an actor is aware of a substantial risk but consciously disregards said risk

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

negligent

A

a reasonable person should have known of a substantial risk

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

strict liability

A

liability w/o regard to mental state

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

three charges for homicide

A

murder, manslaughter, and negligent homicide

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

murder

A

actor is purposeful or knowing

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

manslaughter

A

actor is reckless

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

negligent homicide

A

actor is negligent

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

standard for negligence

A

objectively, what would a reasonable person have known in the situation

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

role of mistake

A

D may argue that mistake negates higher mental states, but admits to lower mental state

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

faultless mistake

A

actor did not commit conduct negligently, recklessly, knowingly, or purposely

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

negligent mistake

A

mistake negates recklessly, knowingly, and purposely

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

reckless mistake

A

mistake negates knowingly and purposely

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

standard evaluation of mistake

A

objective reasonableness

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

babies & ditches

A

G is purposeful b/c he sought result to harm A;
all other mental states for G do not matter if purpose is blameworthy;
C is negligent b/c she was not aware of substantial risk (ditch hidden in grass)

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

too young / too immature

A

L is strict liability b/c statutory rape is considered a strict liability crime;
strict liability is liability w/o regard to culpable mental state

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

a vegan death

A

parents are negligent b/c not aware of substantial risk, but parents should have been more aware of risk to child

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

Thomas Fungwe

A

purposeful? no b/c did not plan on killing child;
knowing? no b/c TF did not know child was in car at time of arriving to work;
reckless? perhaps b/c TF was aware that child was in car at some point during ride b/c he placed the child in the car;
negligent? perhaps b/c a reasonable person would have known to drop off small child at daycare

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

homicide aggravator

A

homicide that may be negligent homicide, manslaughter, or an unintentional killing, but we upgrade the offense to murder b/c of the presence of an aggravator

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

what kind of argument is aggravation?

A

P b/c attempting to increase grade or seriousness of offense

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

what are the aggravation doctrines?

A

Extreme Indifference to value of a human life (MPC);
Depraved Heart (Common Law);
Felony Murder Rule

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Extreme Indifference to value of a human life

A

homicide committed under circumstances manifesting extreme recklessness;
suggests either a high level of recklessness (approx. 70%) or an actor repeatedly ignored a risk (approx. 20%);
echoes a knowingly mental state

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
depraved heart
aka abandoned and malignant heart; focuses on implied cruelty or malice rather than level of risk or disregard; echoes a purposeful mental state
26
3 applications to the FMR
Traditional, Limited, MPC
27
traditional FMR
unintentional death occurs during commission of (or attempt to commit) any felony constitutes a murder
28
what issues w/ traditional FMR?
no req that D played significant role in killing; | proliferation of non-violent felonies
29
limited FMR
limited to enumerated inherently dangerous felonies; | solves problem of traditional rule w/ exclusion of non-violent felonies
30
what are considered to be dangerous felonies?
robbery, rape, arson, burglary, kidnapping
31
issue w/ limited FMR
still does not solve problem of D not involved in felony
32
MPC FMR
creates a rebuttable presumption of extreme indifference; | only includes specific serious felonies including robbery, rape, arson, burglary, kidnapping, felonious escape
33
homicide mitigator
decrease of a grade / seriousness of offense by one step (or more) if homicide committed w/ presence of mitigator
34
what kind of argument is mitigation?
D b/c attempting to decrease grade or seriousness of offense
35
two approaches to homicide mitigator
heat of passion and EM / ED
36
heat of passion (Common Law)
key word is provocation; | must be intense, sudden, and justified anger cause by provocateur
37
three requirements to heat of passion
objective reasonableness test; no cool off allowed; victim limited to provocateur
38
objective reasonableness test
no consideration of unique circumstances; | embodies social phenomenon depending on community homicide occurs
39
Extreme mental/emotional disturbance (MPC)
subjective reasonableness test; no time limit; victim can be anyone
40
subjective reasonableness test
from view point of actor's situation
41
But for cause
set the series of events in motion ending in the result; | w/o the cause, the result would not have happend
42
Three factors of Proximate Cause
(1) passage of time (2) intervening cause (3) foreseeability/culpability
43
Intervening Causes for Proximate Cause
accident --> okay argument for D other actor --> better argument for D other bad actor --> best argument for D
44
in intervening cause, what does another bad actor indicate?
possible superseding cause = criminal actor
45
MPC Proximate Cause
result not too remote or accidental to have a just bearing on actor's liability
46
Some states Proximate Cause
... and the result not too dependent on another's volitional act
47
another's volitional act in Proximate Cause
presence of other bad actor means no proximate cause
48
mental states req for attempt liability
conduct = purposeful result = purposeful / knowing attendant circumstances = reckless
49
conduct requirement for attempt liability
some states = proximity test | MPC = a substantial step
50
factors for some states' proximity test
closeness = temporal or physical dangerousness = weapons, vics, targets "no turning back" = commitment
51
a substantial step MPC
a significant act strongly corroborative of actor's purpose; | more than thinking or mere prep
52
7 elements that strongly corroborates MPC actor's purpose
(1) lying in wait (2) enticing victim (3) reconnoitering (4) unlawful entry (5) possession of designed materials / materials in proximity w/ no lawful purpose (6) soliciting (7) aiding and/or assisting
53
defense of renunciation
abandoned effort or prevent the crime; | a complete and voluntary renunciation of criminal purpose
54
P argument for renunciation
calculated decision to avoid detection, apprehension, or failure; calculated decision to postpone
55
conspiracy
an agreement b/w two or more actors to commit, attempt, or solicit a crime
56
three requirements for conspiracy
(1) mental state (2) agreement (3) overt act in furtherance of conspiracy
57
mental state requirements for conspiracy
purpose for conduct/result
58
agreement requirements for conspiracy
b/w two or more actors to commit, attempt, or solicit a crime; MPC = unilateral or bilateral some state = bilateral only
59
overt act requirements for conspiracy
beyond the agreement; MPC = not req'd for serious offenses some states = req'd for ALL offenses
60
renunciation defense for conspiracy
complete and voluntary attempt to prevent/thwart success of conspiracy; higher standard than attempt
61
direction for P in intoxication crime
do not focus on intoxication of D; | instead, focus on the most culpable conduct, ESPECIALLY if culpable BEFORE intoxication
62
two types of intoxication
involuntary and voluntary
63
when is intox defense allowed?
only defensible if actor is so intox'd that he/she is not able to appreciate their criminality or conform their conduct
64
invol intox
strongest argument for D b/c, if successful, it negates the mental state for D
65
types of invol intox
(1) not knowingly consumed (2) no knowledge of intox'ing effects (or ought to know) (3) medical advice w/o knowledge of intox'ing effect (4) unanticipated level of intox; unforeseeable exaggerated response to known intox, like allergic reaction (5) other circumstances like duress/necessity/etc.
66
vol intox
not ideal for D, but it is better than the alternative; | better argument for P b/c argument not in some states
67
MPC vol intox
negates the higher mental state but imputes recklessness
68
three requirements for complicity
conduct, mental state for assistance, and mental state for underlying crime
69
complicity MPC conduct
(1) promoting or facilitating (2) aiding/encouraging (3) attempting to aid (4) agreeing to aid (5) soliciting (6) failing to prevent if under legal duty
70
complicity some states conduct
some states don't allow attempting to aid
71
complicity conduct if agreement is the conduct
same split on unilateral/bilateral
72
complicity conduct if attempt is the conduct
same conduct requirements (substantial step/proximity)
73
complicity MPC mental state for assistance
purpose
74
complicity some states mental state for assistance
purpose
75
complicity MPC mental state for underlying crime
conduct crime = purpose | result crime = purpose, knowing, reckless, negligent (homicide = accomplice to murder, manslaughter, negligent homicide)
76
complicity some states mental state for underlying crime
purpose for conduct or result crime
77
any limits on FMR and Complicity
some states require prosecution prove that accomplice was armed, participated in killing, could foresee death
78
innocent instrumentality
liability if actor purposely causes an innocent person to commit offense
79
act requirement (defense argument)
- at a minimum, must include voluntary muscular movement | - mere silence insufficient, unless circumstances imply inference of more (crime boss)
80
involuntary actions
- reflex, convulsion, seizure (hiccups) - movement during unconsciousness or sleep (sleepwalking) - conduct during hypnosis not generally accepted as involuntary
81
omission (prosecution argument)
- exception to the act requirement | - liability only if actor under duty and capable of performing
82
sources of duty
- statute - special status (parent, host, landowner) - voluntary assumption of care and seclusion - contractual duty
83
MPC belief element of necessity defense
actor believes conduct necessary to avoid harm to actor or another
84
Some States belief element of necessity defense
objective necessity
85
MPC timing element of necessity defense
action immediately necessary
86
Some States timing element of necessity defense
imminent threat
87
conduct element of necessity defense
- conduct actually averts the threat, or | - no lawful/less harmful means available
88
proportionality element of necessity defense
objective reasonableness = offense charged inflicts less harm than evil avoided
89
MPC Deadly Force in necessity defense
defense only to a lesser crime than the harm/evil avoided
90
Some States Deadly Force in necessity defense
necessity not a defense to use of deadly force/homicide
91
governmental preemption
no necessity defense if issue resolved by legal system OR more specific defense available (self-defense)
92
MPC necessity defense limitations
- actor creates situation or appraises necessity recklessly or negligently - liability for charge of reckless or negligent offense
93
Some States necessity defense limitations
no necessity defense if actor contributed to bringing about threatened harm

Criminal Law (1 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions