JU JUS OUTLINE

Question 1

Specific deterrence

Answer 1

The particular defendant will avoid future crimes because they fear additional punishment. The mental state here matters because it helps to determine how much punishment is needed for deterrence.

Question 2

General deterrence

Answer 2

Other people will not commit crimes for the fear of suffering the same punishment that a current defendant is experiencing. Wants to send a message to society as a whole to stop criminal conduct that will be punished

Question 3

Rehabilitation

Answer 3

Utilitarian Theory” Society has an obligation to punish an individual in a way that makes them a better person tomorrow. Believes that people are capable of changing and contributing to society positively. Pushing the wrongdoer for reform of their behavior.

Question 4

Retribution

Answer 4

Looks at the past not the future to ensure that the individual gets what she or he deserves

Question 5

Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances

Answer 5

mitigating factors are ones that can decrease the D’s criminal liability leading to a lesser sentence

Question 6

Actus Reus

Answer 6

A voluntary physical act or omission → the “wrongful act”

Question 7

Voluntariness

Answer 7

MPC §1.13(2) → “act” or “action” is a bodily movement whether voluntary or involuntary
MPC §2.01 → “a person is not guilty of an offense unless his liability is based on conduct which includes a voluntary act or the omission to perform an act of which he is physically capable” →Defines what voluntary is NOT → reflex, convulsion, unconsciousness/sleep, hypnosis, anything that is not produced by the actor
Reflex → the absence of deliberation
Habit → the conscious choice that is unconsciously repeated → it fits the voluntary act part of actus reus
Automatism → someone is capable of an action without consciousness of what they are doing (sometimes a defense)

Question 8

Omission 2.01(3)

Answer 8

Failure to Act When you had a legal Duty to Act
MPC §2.01(3) → you can only be held criminally liable for not acting where the law requires you to act
(a) the law says that failing to act is enough to break the law
(b) you had a legal duty to act but did not
Applies in cases where D had a duty to act but did not → should have done something but didn’t
Duty can be created in the common law where:
Contractual duty
Statute imposes a duty
Relationship
Assumption of the Risk
Creation of the Risk

Question 9

Possession 2.01(4)

Answer 9

Usually applies to drugs, firearms, and stolen property
MPC §2.01(4) → the possessor knowingly took or received the thing and had enough time to get rid of it
Common Law → having physical control over something with the intent to control it

Question 10

Specific Intent

Answer 10

lowest level of proof → D was involved in a crime and they were aware but there is no need for the government to prove that there was any particular mens rea or that the D believed a particular result would occur

Question 11

Specific Intent

Answer 11

highest level of proof –. Government must prove that D had a particular state of mind during the commission of the offense
→ ex: burglary states “with the intent to commit a crime therein” the language is indicative of a specific intent crime

Question 12

2.02 (a) Purposely

Answer 12

conscious object to engage in the conduct or to cause such a result, he is aware of the attendant circumstances or hopes that they exist

Question 13

2.02 (b) Knowingly

Answer 13

he is aware that his conduct is practically certain to cause a particular result.

Question 14

2.02 (c) Recklessly

Answer 14

conscious disregard for a substantial and unjustifiable risk that is a gross deviation from the conduct of a law-abiding citizen in the same situation.

Question 15

2.02 (d) Negligently

Answer 15

should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk, the failure to perceive the risk is a gross deviation from that of a reasonable person in a similar situation

Question 16

Causation in Fact (But-For Cause/ “sine qua non”)

Answer 16

but-for the defendants actions, the result would not have happened when it happened

Question 17

Proximate Cause

Answer 17

limits the cause to what is directly related to the act
MPC §2.03
MPC §2.03(2)(b)
MPC §2.03(3)(b)

Question 18

Intervening causes

Answer 18

May cut off liability if the act was NOT REASONABLY FORESEEABLE
Independent Intervening Cause → the intervening act was abnormal and unforeseeable so much so that it cuts off the causal connection for the D’s actual cause

Question 19

Intervening act

Answer 19

D stabs V lightly in the arm (non-fatal wound). While waiting for an ambulance, a lightning bolt strikes V and kills him. The lightning strike is an independent, unforeseeable event — D is not liable for homicide.

Question 20

Dependent Intervening Cause

Answer 20

Does not relieve the criminal liability because the intervening act was normal and reasonable foreseeable

Question 21

Dependent Intervening Cause

Answer 21

D shoots V in the leg. V goes to the hospital, but the doctor makes a minor medical mistake during surgery, and V dies. Medical malpractice is foreseeable — D is still liable for V’s death.

Question 22

§210.1 CRIMINAL HOMICIDE

Answer 22

A person is guilty of criminal homicide if he purposely, knowingly, recklessly or negligently causes the death of another human being
Criminal homicide is murder, manslaughter, or negligent homicide

Question 23

Murder → Malice Aforethought (mens rea)

Answer 23

CL
1ST DEGREE (POSSIBLY SUBJECT TO DEATH)
Willful, deliberate, and premeditated (purposely killing while appreciating the significance of your actions and thinking about them beforehand→ killing in “cold blood”)
Felony murder as specified by statute
Killing by poison or lying in wait
2ND DEGREE
Any intentional (purposeful ot knowing) killing other than first degree murder or voluntary manslaughter (unreasonable heart of passion killings)
Intentionally (purposely or knowingly) causing serious bodily injury but where death, though never intended, results
Felony murder (not raised by statute)
Depraved Heart (abandoned and malignant heart) murder → a special kind of extreme recklessness that exhibits indifference to the value of human life)

Question 24

Manslaughter

Answer 24

CL A killing that would otherwise be a murder
VOLUNTARY
Mental state that would ordinarily qualify as murder
When D has been provoked by the victim into the heat of passion
A reasonable person would have been so provoked
The D has not cooled off by the time of the killing and
a reasonable person would not have cooled off
INVOLUNTARY
In some jurisdictions, a reckless killing (not depraved heart), in other jurisdictions, a criminally negligent killing and, in other jurisdictions, a killing done with ordinary tort negligence; or
Misdemeanor-manslaughter
Imperfect self defense (where some elements of the defense are met)

Question 25

Extreme Emotional Disturbance

Answer 25

CL does not require a legally sufficient provocation by the victim or a heat of passion killing

Question 26

Felony-Murder Rule (strict liability crime)

Answer 26

CL if the D is engaged in a felony at the time of a murder, it is still murder → usually second degree

Question 27

§210.2. Murder

Answer 27

Criminal homicide constitutes murder when It is committed purposely or knowingly; or It is committed recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life

Question 28

§210.3. Manslaughter

Answer 28

Criminal homicide constitutes manslaughter when It is committed recklessly; or It would otherwise be murder but is committed under the influence of Extreme mental or emotional disturbance that a reasonable person would have had the same reaction in.

Question 29

§210.4 Negligent Homicide

Answer 29

Criminal homicide constitutes negligent homicide when it is committed negligently

Question 30

Mistake of Law CL

Answer 30

whether the mistake negates the Mens Rea for the offense →what proof is necessary to establish that it is a defense Mistake of Law: →not usually successful, has 2 exceptions Reasonable reliance: The gov. at a sufficiently high level provides legal misinformation to D Gov. failed to provide notice (publishing of a law = notice of that law)

Question 31

Mistake of Fact: CL

Answer 31

SPECIFIC INTENT CRIMES →only requires proof that D mistake regarding an element of the offense (subjective) → even if the mistake was unreasonable (i.e. one that a reasonable person would not make) GENERAL INTENT CRIMES →D’s mistake must be reasonable (i.e. a reasonable person in similar circumstances would make the same mistake)

Question 32

§2.04 Ignorance or Mistake: CL

Answer 32

Permitting a defense based on a mistake “as to a matter of fact or law”

Question 33

Self Defense: CL

Answer 33

A person may use force to resist another who seeks to cause that person harm D is threatened with the use or imminent use of Unlawful Force That does or could cause physical injury That a reasonable person would believe could not be avoided without the use of physical force and the actor Defends only using a reasonable amount of force and Was not responsible for the situation that prompted the need to use such force

Question 34

GENERAL PRINCIPLES TO SELF DEFENSE CL

Answer 34

Necessity/ Eminence (b) proportionality (c) reasonable belief → if the threat of force is not immediate then the use of force is usually not considered necessary

Question 35

SUBJECTIVE OR OBJECTIVE APPROACH CL

Answer 35

Defendant must actually hold belief that there was a threat (subjective) AND It must be a reasonable belief of an imminent and unlawful harm (objective)

Question 36

AGGRESSOR STATUS CL

Answer 36

if a person who was the original agessor withdraws (language and conduct) they may regain the right to a self defense claim

Question 37

BURDEN OF PROOF CL

Answer 37

defendant must meet the initial burden of producing the evidence to establish self defense prosecution must demonstrate the lack of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt for the jury to convict.

Question 38

RETREAT RULE CL

Answer 38

majority has no duty to retreat → minority of states have a duty to retreat to a safe place before the use of deadly force → D does not have to place themself in danger and the means of retreat must be reasonably available

Question 39

NO DUTY TO RETREAT CL

Answer 39

where there is no duty to retreat, D may be entitled to a jury instruction stating so

Question 40

THE CASTLE DOCTRINE CL

Answer 40

person does not need to withdraw from their own home or the “curtilage” or the area immediately adjoining their land

Question 41

CO-OWNERSHIP CL

Answer 41

the duty to retreat where both parties are lawfully present does not apply (ex: domestic abuse, neither party has a duty to retreat)

Question 42

§3.05. Use of Force for the Protection of Other Persons

Answer 42

§3.04. Use of Force in Self Protection Force is justifiable for defense of self as per §3.04 and §3.09 where the force is immediately necessary for protecting oneself against unlawful force by another Limitations The use of force is not justifiable if: It is used to resist arrest by a peace officer even if it is unlawful; or It is used to resist force used b y an occupier or possessor of property on behalf of himself or another where the actor know that the force is because of a claim of right to protect the property UNLESS: The actor is a public officer performing his duties or someone who is helping him do so, ot a person making/helping in a lawful arrest Actor has been unlawfully dispossessed of his property and is making reentry or recapture (§3.06) Actor believes that force is necessary for protection from death or bodily injury. (b) The use of deadly force is not justifiable unless the actor believed that they need to use such force to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat, it is not justifiable where: (i) actor provoked the use of force (provoked the person who was facing the actor with threat of physical force) (ii) actor knows he can avoid threat or force by safely retreating it surrendering possession of a thing, or complying with a demand No duty except: Not obligated to retreat from dwelling or place of work unless he was the initial actor or assailed by another at the same place of work A public officer was justified in using force to perform his duties (c) a person using protective force may do so as long as they are under circumstances where they believe it is necessary and that they cannot protect themself by retreating, surrendering possession or doing anything that he has no legal duty to do (3) Confinement can be used as a protective force where all other measures have been exhausted.

Question 43

§2.09 Duress:

Answer 43

Affirmative defense that actor engaged in because he was coerced to do so (use of unlawful force) This section is not available where D recklessly or negligently placed himself in the situation Not a defense that a woman acted at the direction of her husband unless she acted under coercion

Question 44

Duress

Answer 44

D must produce evidence that: D was under an unlawful threat of imminent death or serious bodily harm from a human source The threat caused such fear of death or serious bodily injury The fear was operating on the mind of the D at the time of the alleged criminal act D committed the criminal act to avoid the threatened harm *Common Law Defense* **The person was coerced into committing a crime, the threat need not be directly towards the actor**

Question 45

Intoxication Involuntary

Answer 45

→Exculpatory (released from guilt) as D was coerced, fraudulently induced, prescribed inappropriately by a medical professional and pathological → no manifestation of D’s will to intoxicate himself Voluntary → Actus reus → voluntariness/manifestation of will/ self-induced ingestion of the intoxicant → Mens rea → COULD serve as a failure-of-proof if the gov. cannot prove that the intoxicated D possessed the requisite mens reas of a specific intent crime → NOT a defense to general intent crimes

Question 46

§3.02. Justification Generally: Choice of Evils:

Answer 46

Conduct that rhe actor believes to be necessary to avoid harm or evil to himself or another The harm or evil sought to be avoided by the conduct of the actor is greater than the harm that D’s conduct will cause No code or law prohibits the specific situation Legislative purpose to exclude the justification does not exit Where the actor was reckless or negligent, this section foes not apply and the conduct may be sufficient to warrant culpability

Question 47

Larceny

Answer 47

Tresspasory Taking and carrying away Of another’s personal property With the intent To permanently deprive the possessor Of the property → the crime was not complete unless there was a carrying away → labor, service, realty could not be subjects of larceny because they cannot be taken and carried away LARCENY BY TRICK → D obtains possession of but not title to another's property by fraud of trickery → fraud violates consent where the person consented due to false representations and the representor had the intent to steal the property FALSE PRETENSES Acting with intent to defraud A person knowingly misrepresents A fact (present or past) That induces the victim To relinquish the title to property LARCENY V. FALSE PRETENSES → Larceny = no title obtained → False pretenses = title obtained

Question 48

Robbery

Answer 48

The taking of property in the presence of the victim And that be accomplished With force that is greater than the force required to achieve the taking The crim is accomplished by putting the victim in fear

Question 49

Burglary

Answer 49

Breaking and entering The dwelling house of another At night time ? With the intent to commit a felony therein

Question 50

Embezzlement

Answer 50

Fraudulently converting; personal property of another; by someone who has been entrusted with that property; with the intent to deprive the owner of that property.

Question 51

Theft

Answer 51

→ Moveable property dominion

Question 52

MPC §2.08 I

Answer 52

Intoxication is only a defense where it negates an element of an offense Where recklessness is the element, a self-induced D does not have a defense of intoxication if he would have known of the risk he created of sober Intoxication itself does not constitute mental disease Intoxication that is Not self-induced or Is pathological is an affirmative defense IF at the time of the conduct, D lacked the substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the law