Test 2 - Packet Definitions Flashcards
(100 cards)
1
Q
A
Burglary
2
Q
the use of some force, turning the doorknob
A
Actual Breaking
3
Q
Fraud, threatening to use of force, entering through a chimney, obtaining entry by having servant or other co-conspirator in the house open a door
A
Constructive Breaking
4
Q
Without consent (under def of burglary)
A
Trespassory
5
Q
The slighest intrusion into the structure by any part of the defendant’s boody is sufficent (one little finger)
entry
A
Of a Person
6
Q
is only being used to get inside, can be used for an underlying crime
entry
A
Of an object
7
Q
Sending a young kid in to do the job for an adult
A
Constructive Entry
8
Q
Need a casual relationship between the breaking and the entry
breaking has to be the means of entry
ex: D forces a window open to crawl into X’s house, before he crawls through the window he notices an open door, he leaves the window and goes through the door. There is no burglary
A
And
9
Q
Area surrounding a dwelling house
A
Curtilage
10
Q
any place used to sleep in on a regular basis
A
Dwelling House
ex: cabin/winter ice house, apartments above business, cardboard box under bridge
11
Q
go by occupancy, not ownership. A landlord can burglarize a house he owns if it is rented to another
joint occupancy - neither can burglarize the house
A
Of Another
12
Q
when a person’s features cannot be distinguished by natural sunlight
A
nighttime
13
Q
forms of entry
Burglary
A
of a person, of an object, constructive entry by an innocent agent (child)
14
Q
intent
burglary
A
- intent to break and enter
- intent to commit a felony inside
there is no felony if the intent was formed after entry
ex: enter to get out of a storm, but takes items only after inside and notice cool items in the house, no burglary here, not all theft is at a felony level
15
Q
aggravated factors of burglary
common law
A
a. inhabited dwelling
b. armed with a deadly weapon
c. involving an assault upon a person
16
Q
the malicious burning of the dwelling house of another
A
Arson
17
Q
Malice Crime
arson
A
- intent to burn
- knew it would burn
- created an obvious fire hazard
(simple negligence will not do - accidental burnings)
18
Q
Burning
arson
A
- Not smoke damage
- not scorching - mere discoloration from heat will not work
- burning/charring - fire damage to a part of the structure or fixtures, this works as arson
- explosion, but no fire - this does not support an arson
personal objects do not count, unless it hits the floor, ceiling, walls, or fixtures (object built into the floor or wall)
19
Q
you burn your own house
A
house burning
different from arson, as arson is burning someone else’s house
20
Q
a wrongful (trespassory) taking and carrying away (asportation) of the personal property of another with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of poession of the property
A
Larceny
21
Q
personal property
larcency
A
tangible property (goods, chattels, things)
1. real property - land (no)
2. fixtures - items permanently attatched to the land (no)
3. wild animals (no)
4. base animals - animals of value (work)
5. services - train ride, nights lodging, haircut (work)
6. intangibles - stock certificiates, documents, records
22
Q
taking away motion, carrying
(just changing position is not enough)
larcency def.
A
asportation
23
Q
the defendant must acquire dominion and control over the property. the defendant can take it directly, or get an innocent agent to take it
A
Taking
24
Q
Here there is not taking, no one gets posession
ex: D knocked a glass from X’s hand, it falls to the floor and breaks. The damage is irrelevant, the point is X lost pession, but d never got control.
A
Malicious Mischief
25
the taking must without consent
| larceny
Wrongful
26
In this property crime; D has permission to take the property. But, the permission was obtained by deception
## Footnote
ex: D asks if he can borrow V's skateboard to run a short errand. D promises to return it by evening. D actually intends to keep the skateboard. Since there was deception (fraud) then it is..
Larceny by Trick
27
def of shoplifting
when they leave the store, or move past the last register.
28
aggravated larceny; the property is taken from the victim's person or presence by means of violence or intimidation
Robbery
29
taking the property right off the person
| robbery occurs
victim's person
30
close to the victim and within the victim's control
| robbery occurs
## Footnote
ex: D forced V, a drugstore manager, at gunpoint to open a safe. D then locked V in another room and took the money from the safe.
Victim's Presence
31
any force used to take
| robbery occurs
## Footnote
ex: pickpockets & snatching situation (NOT), ex2: person grabs property, and victim feels it and tries to stop it, defendant yanks his hand free and runs off (YES)
Violence
32
traditionally the threats must be of death, bodily injury, or destruction of the dwelling house. And, the threat must place the victim in fear, must be immediate and directed at the owner, his family or other relative
| robbery occurs
Intimindation
33
obtaining or attempting to obtain property by threats not sufficent to constitute robbery and with the intent to obtain property or something of value (threats to accuse a person of a crime or threats to expose a secret.)
Exortation (Blackmail)
34
Receiving possession and control of person property known to have been obtained in a manner constituting a criminal offense by another person with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of his interest in the property
| fills in a hole in larceny
Receiving Stolen Property
## Footnote
A. How Prove - look for disproportionally low price paid for the item.
B. Can't be both the thief and the receiver of stolen property. (Can't receive it from yourself)
35
creating or altering something with legal signifigance
| common law
Forgery
36
passing off a forgery as genunine (using it)
uttering a forgered instrument
37
note;
modern law, common law forgery no long exists. Modern forgery is the old uttering a forgered intstrument. (one can make or create flase writings until their heart's content. there is no crime until one tries to use it)
38
consolidations of offenses under theft
Patterns:
1. Single crime designed to cover many
2. Mutliple theft crimes
Punishments: The crime is often divided into degrees with petty theft being a misdemeanor and grand theft being a felony
Felonies:
1. Value is over a certain set dollar amount.
2. Some items are listed and taking the items ID a felony
3. Thefts that involve risk to others (robbery) are made felonies.
39
only crime provided for in the US Constitution (act 3, sect 3, Cl 1) Defined as levying war against the US, adhering to their enemeis (joining), or giving their enemies aid and comfort (help, support, assistance, counsel, encouragement). States many times, have a similar definitions in their state constitutions. It would cover the same activites, but be against the state.
Treason
40
Requirements of Treason
a. must owe allegiances - have US citizenship
b. need some overt act - disloyal thoughts are not enough
c. need to intend to betray or be aware actions will assit the enemy
d. need the testimony of at least two witnesses to the act of the defendant's confession
41
Treason like crimes
Rebelling, Advocating the overthrow of the government
42
the willful giing of a false statement under oath in a judicial proceeding.
modern - any statement where oath is administered
| offenses involving judicial procedure
perjury
43
aspects of perjury
limitation; must be to a material matter meaning I could have influnced the outcome
effect of retraction; states split on whether someone can "take it back" without penalty.
## Footnote
(crime is committed when the person does the act with the intent for the crime. Right at that point the crime is completed. The question becomes how can someone take back a completed crime. That is why states split.)
44
intentionally causing someone else to commit perjury
| offenses involving judicial procedure
Subordination of Perjury
45
deliberate concealment of one's knowledge of a treasonable act or a felony
| offenses involving judicial procedure
AATF, Hindering Apprehenstion or Prosecution, Misprison of Felony
46
agreeing for consideration (payment or receipt of anything of value) not to prosecute another for a felony
| offenses involving judicial procedure
compounding a crime
47
common law; the corrupt payment or receipt of anything of value in return for offical action
modern; extends to more people than just govt. offcials, act involves either offering or taking it.
| offenses involving judicial procedure
Bribery
48
preliminary offense, common law; it is a misdemeanor to counsel, incite or induce another to commit or join in the commission of any offense, whether that offense is a felony or misdemeanor
solicitation
49
the defendant has to not only intend his actions, but he has to also have the intent or purpose of causing the person solicited to commit the crime (can't just be in jest)
| solicitation
mental state - solicitation
50
counseling, inciting, or inducing
1. the solicited person does not have to respond affirmatively
2. the solicitation does not have to be directed at anyone in particular. it can be given to a crowd
3. impossibility is also no defense
| solicitation
## Footnote
ex: D approaches V and says "I'll give you $500 if you'll beat up X", V is an undercover cop, who then arrests D. This is solicitation. Doesn't matter that this was impossible to carry out since V was an undercover cop.
ex: also solicitation even if the defendant fails to effectively communicate it; giving the message to someone who fails to deliver it or miss-delivers it, (letter given to wrong house)
Act - Solicitation
51
can one take it back? the courts have not settled the issue of whether one can "take it back" and thus escape the charge
| solicitation
Renunciation
52
modern statutes;
| solicitation
MPC - follows the common law defintion, but also allows for punishments at a misdemeanor or felony level
States - many limit the chrage of solicitation to more serious offenses like murder, rape, kidnapping, robbery
MN - doesn't create the crime directly but, instead, allows for the offense under particular crimes; ex: solicitation for prostitution
53
note;
| solicitation
solicitation merges into attempt or conspiracy, you cannot be convicted of both
54
we fear groups, desite to stop crime before complete
conspiracy
55
a combination or agreement between two or more people to;
a. accomplish an unlawful purpose
b. to accomplish a lawful purpose by unlawful means (extorition, excessive force)
--
a. some limit the defintion to just a.
b. (some say) there is only a conspiracy if the underlying crime is a specifically proscribed offense. (state makes a list of crimes that will support conspiracy, if crime is not on it, then it cannot be charged.)
c. MN -- stays with the common law
defintions of conspiracy
(common law or modern statutes)
56
1. intent to enter into agreement
2 + 1. Intent to achieve the obecjtive of the agreement
Mental State of Conspiracy
| states are split if 1 is enough or if you need 2 + 1
## Footnote
note: if in 1, out if 2+1, preferal person knows what people are doing, but aren't directly involved. (person sells dingy trailor for $1000 an hour, but knows the people using it are using it to make drugs, but not directly involved)
57
entering into the agreement
| conspiracy
the act
## Footnote
1. the act does not have to be express, the existence of agreement can shown through actions. ex: when solicited, the person says nothing, but goes off and begins to assist in the conspiracy
2. merely expressing approval is not enough. ex: A plans to rob a bank. When soliticted by A to join, B says "what a break for you, you will make a fortune." Here the court said no agreement.
**--Under common law the agreement was enough, the MPC, and some states, require that some act that tends to further the conspiracy be perfomed in addition to the agreement.**
58
Liability of One Conspirator for the Crimes Committed by Other Conspirators, all conspirators guilty of crimes committed by fellow conspirators provided 2 conditions are met.
Importance of the Crime
59
the two conditions
| importance of the crime
a. the crime were reasonable foresseable -- necessary or a natural result of the conspiracy
b. that people can be found guilty of both conspiracy and the complete crime if goals accomplished (plea bargaining chip as no merger)
60
1. One agreement, then just one conspiracy, ex - A & B agree to rob a bank each month for one year. While this is 12 bank robberies, this is just one conspiracy. There was one agreeemtn to engage in a course of criminal conduct.
2. Two agreements, successfully do one robbery and then plan another, results in two conspiracies
definitions of multiple crimes
61
There is multiple links (people involved in some aspect of the conspiracy. Courts consider this to be ONE conspiracy.
| complex conspiracies
Chain Conspiracy
## Footnote
EXAMPLE ON TEST: DRUG RING. Smuggler brings heroin into the country and sells it to a wholesaler. The wholesaler seels it to numerous retailers. This is one conspiracy. If one of these links is broken, the conspiracy must reform to continue. Since this is one conspiracy any of the crimes committed by any of the members can be charged to the other as long as the crime was foresseable and done in futherance of the objectives of the conspiracy.
62
A wagon wheel that has spokes coming off the center. This conspiracy has spokes representing unconnected people/ IN the cneter is a common perosn. The common person makes several different agreements. Made up of several differnt conspiracies. This is NOT one conspiracy. If one spoke is stopped, the rest of them can still continue
| Complex Conspiracies
Hub and Spoke
## Footnote
EXAMPLE ON TEST: Fraudulent Loan Officer, X is in the center. He is a fradulent loan officer. If someone does not qualify for a loan, he will write up the loan paperwork and send it into the bank sustem providing the person who wants the loan pays him under the table. X makes fraudulent loans with A, B, C, & D. These are all separate conspiracies. Even if A commits a crime, it does not affect the others, and the wheel does not stop spinning until X is stopped.
63
Implications of the requirement of two or more people
1. Husband and Wife (CANNOT BE A CONSPIRACY, since they are seen as one)
2. Corporation and Agents (No conspiracy is only members of a corporation and an agent, or two corporations and one agent. There is only one person. A corporation is not a person for conspiracy purposes.
64
Acquittal
READ PACKET.
65
When it takes two people to commit a crime, then it takes three peopel to have a conspiracy to commit that crime. There always has to be one more person than needed to do the crime for a conspiracy.
Whatron's Rule
| READ PACKET FOR EXAMPLES
66
Impossibility of success?
| Defenses
NO DEFENSE.
## Footnote
Example: A and B agree to rape a woman whom they think is asleep. In fact, she is dead. A and B may be convicted of conspiring to rape, even though they could not rape her.
67
General Rule - _ from a conspiracy os mp defemse to the crime of conspiracy no matter when it takes place. However, can get the person out of any future crimes committed by the other co-conspirators providing threee conditions are met.
| Defenses
Withdrawal
68
Three Rules to Withdrawal
1. Person who wants out must let all fellow conspirators know they are out.
2. The person must notify with enough time for others to abndon their plans. (As everyone is leaving to rob the bnak will be too late)
3. The perosn must also take back anything given to help conspiracy.
If these cannot be done, it is possible the person will only have an imperfect withdrawal. Might lessen their sentence.
## Footnote
MPC - would have allowed a conspirator to get out of a the conspiracy charge provided the one withdrwaing "thwarted the success of the conspiracy" under circumstances manifesting a complete and voluntary reuniciation of criminal purpose
69
Example of Withdrawal
A, B, and C agree to commit a series of larcenies. After two larcenies, A tells B and C that he is out. B and C go on to commit three more larcenies. A is apprehended and charged with conspiracy and five larcenies. Is this correct? If the withdrawal is good, he should be charged with only two larcenies. He will also be charged with conspiracy under the general/majority rule regardless of whether the withdrawal was good or not. (Once a person does the act with the required mental state, the crime is complete. A person cannot get out of completed crimes, only crimes that occur after the drawal. But this is something that a plea bargain could deal with in exchange for testimony.)
70
conditions giving rise to insanity
a.mental illness or disease - delusions, psychosis, multiple personality disorder, etc. (PSYCHOPATHIC DISORDERS DONT WORK)
b. mental retardation
involuntary intoxication
c. involuntary intoxication
71
inability to perceive reality and reason
cognitive
72
inability to control behavior
volitional
73
tests of insanity
| added notes
M'Naghten Rule
Loss of Control Tests
Broader Tests
No Insanity Defense
74
defendant is insane if he is suffering from a disease of the mind, which caused a defect of reason, such that the defendant lacked the ability at the time of his actions to either, 1. know the nature and quality of his actions or 2. Know that his actions were wrong.
Defintion of M'Naghten Rule
75
Nature and quality of his actions
| m'naghten rule
ex: holding a flame to a building will cause the building to burn
ex: D is severely retarded. He shoots and kills V. After this, he keep asking when V will come to visit him. He cannot under why V will not come.
76
Know that his actions are wrong
| m'naghten rule
Lots of splits on how to define "wrong", (legal v moral wrong) most use legal.
ex: D, because of severe schizophrenia believes his wife was unfaithful to him. He also believes that God permits and directs one spouse to kill the other for adultery. He knows killing his wife ia s crime, but still kills her. (THIS DOES NOT WORK UNDER M'NAGHTEN)
## Footnote
schizophrenia completes step one, but fails step two due to knowing his actions are wrong
77
loss of control tests
1. Irresistible Impulse Test - an insane impulse that overcomes the person's will
2. MPC - Lack of substantial capacity - because of a mental disease, person cannot conform his conduct to the law
## Footnote
Criticism - when volitional is added, it is too hard for juries to decide if defendant could control conduct
78
no insanity defense
| note
some states abolished insanity defense
79
Debate of No Insanity Defense
| note
1. Abolish
a. too hard for courts and juries to work with
b. too time consuming
c. favors wealthier defendants
d. not a useful way of diverting those who need treatment
2. Keep
a. These defendants are no blameworthy
b. indiviudal responsibility is reinforced
c. effective way to divert people
80
presumption is that people are sane, so it is up to the defendant to raise the defense; then states split on whether the prosecutor has to prove the defendant is not insane under the state's insanity defense, or whether the defendant has to prove the defeant is insane under the test
burdon of proof
81
procedures
| defenses
1. verdict options - not guilty by reason of insanity or guilty but insane (latter leaves a criminal record)
2. Under either option, defendant is committed
3. When is defendant released - a. no longer a danger to self or others, b. no longer insane. c. both a and b
82
# EXAMPLE
D suffers from a severe mental illness most recently manifested by his erroneous belief that V maliciously slandered him to all his friends. Upset over this, D purchases a gun and kills V. A, a defense psychologist, testifies at trial that d knew killing was wrong, but was compelled by his illness to take V's life.
1. M'naghten? - No acquittal, he knew killing was wrong and probably legally as well as morally.
2. Lack of Substantial Capacity - Now the jury could find that he could not control the urge to act as he did so becasue of his mental illness.
3. New Hampshire Test - Under the but/for test, the act was certainly a product of the mental illness and thus should result in acquittal
83
under age 7, there is a ***conclusive presumption*** that the child could not form criminal intent.
ages 7-14 has a*** rebuttable presumption***, that said the child could not form criminal intent, but it was rebuttable, so a prosecutor could argue that this particular child did for criminal intent and can be tried and punished if found guilty.
| Infancy
Common Law
84
People under 16 exclusively go to juvenile court, people 16/17 start in juvenile court, but the court could wave their jurisdiction and send person to adult court.
| infancy
Juvenile Court Jurisdiction - MPC approach
85
At the time the crime was committed governs. (not mental age)
| infancy
Chronological Age
86
is a state of mind, not a particular substance. It can be caused by things like alcohol, drugs, or a combination of the two. It's all a matter of degree.
Intoxication
87
can be a complete defense if it renders the person insane, the defendant either could not have known the substance ingrested was intoxicating or the defendant would have to have consumed it under direct and immediate duress
| intoxication
Involuntary Intoxication
88
Will prevent conviction only if it shows that the defendat lacked a specific intent required for the crime
rationale - people who commit crimes while voluntarily intoxicated are dangerous and they are blameworthy in that they got themselves intoxicated,, we hold them accountable for general intent crimes, however this can be a defense to spcecific intent crimes
| intoxication
Voluntary Intoxication
89
# EXAMPLE
After drinking heavily (voluntarily), A breaks into a house wrongfully believing it to be her own. When surprised by the homeowner, A beats the homeowner with her fists. A jumps into her car and speeds away. She is stopped for speeding. What will she have/not have a defense for?
| Voluntary Intoxication
Burglary? Has defense, unlikely she intended to commit a felony once she got inside.
Battery? No defense. General intent crime, and can be committed based on recklessness
Speeding? No defense. Speeding is a strict liability offense. No defense can apply.
## Footnote
Minority View - In a few states, voluntary intoxication is not a defense even with specific intent crimes
90
# [](http://)
In general, a mistake of fact will only prevent liability if it shows taht the defendant lacked a mental state essential to the crime.
Ignorance or Mistake of Fact
91
a threat by another human being to use force against the defendant or another person unless the defendant commits the criminal offense
duress
92
requirements
| duress
1. a subjective belief that one is sufficiently threatened may not be enough. (some states require that there must have been a sufficient threat under the objective approach)
2. there must have been no opportunity to obtain assistance or avoid harm by some other noncriminal method
3. the must be sufficiently serious - often only death or serious bodily harm
4. the threat must be immediate
5. the subject of the threat is not limted to the defendant, a family member, or even a total stranger
93
limits
| duress
1. doesn't apply to homicide (can't kill someone else to save one's sel)
2. may also not apply to cases where the defendant intentionally or recklessly placed himself in a position where he would be subject to duress
94
one can use however much _ reasonably appears necessary (objective approach) to prevent a felony or serious breach of the peace
| crime prevention
non-deadly Force
95
only to prevent or end a dangerous felony involving risk to human life
deadly force
96
police officers
| use of force to make an arrest - notes
1. Non-deadly Force - however much non-deadly force reasonably necessary to arrest for a felony or misdemeanor
2. Deadly Force - only if reasonably necessary to arrest a felon who threatens immediate death of serious bodily harm. Some states even make this rule more restrictive by requiring the underlying felony be a serious felony dangerous to life (murder, rape, kidnapping vs felony theft -over certian dollar amount-)
97
citizen
| use of force to make an arrest - notes
## Footnote
private people or police officers outside of their jurisdiction
1. non-deadly force - if a FELONY is in fact committed, there is a reasonable belief that this is the person who committed the crime, and the amount of force is limtied to no more than reasonably necessary
2. deadly force - if the felony was actually committed and only against the person who actually committed the felony. (this means there can be no mistake. Police officers lsoe civil liability protections when they are acting outside of their juridictions. As far as the amount of force, it will be the same as the amount that can used by an officer in the jurisidicition)
98
notes - non deadly
| self defense
however much non-deadly force reasonably appears necessary to protect one's self CAUTION - this defense is only to protect one's self, it can never apply to one's property!
99
requirements of deadly force
| self-defense
1. reasonably belief that threatened wiht physical harm and reasonable belief that deadly force is necessary to defend one's self
2. person is without fault (CANNOT BE INITIAL AGGRESSOR)
3. confronted with unlawful force by an attacker
4. the attacker is threatening immediate death or serious bodily harm
5. there is a reasonable (objective) belief that deadly force is necessary to stop the attack
EXAMPLE - A who has his hands handcuffed behind his back says "I'm going to kill you and your family". Officer shot A. Does officer have a self-defense to the shooting? No. There is no immediate threat since A's hands are cuffed.
100
reasonable force may be used to defend another against unlawful harm. more force than necessary cannot be used. also, the danger to the other must appear immediate. No particular relationship to the other person is necessary
defense of others - generally
