Tuck COPY COPY Flashcards

Question

Mens Rea definition

Answer 1

"Need any morally culpable state of mind (Broad general ) and state of mind that staturorily required in order to convict a particular defendant for a particular harm. (Element-specific intent). Look to statute. If no statute for MPC or common law. Look to broad definition. Note: if no statute with specific intent test the MPC intents. "

Answer 2

Motive is the reason that nudges the will and causes the mind to indulge in criminal intent. IT is the why.

Answer 3

"In most cases, a “specific intent” offense is one that expressly contains one of the following mens rea elements in its definition: 1) the intent to commit some act over and beyond the actus reus of the offense; (2) a special motive for committing the actus reus of the offense; or (3) awareness of a particular attendant circumstance. (General intent means that one of these 3 don't exist) "Burglary” is a specific-intent offense of the first type. The offense is defined at common law as “breaking and entering the dwelling house of another at night, with the intent to commit a felony therein.” The actus reus is “breaking and entering the dwelling house of another at night.” The mens rea—“intent to commit a felony therein”—is a mental state pertaining to an act (commission of a felony) that is notpart of the actus reus of the offense. That is, the crime of burglary is complete whether or not D ever commits a felony inside the house; but it is incomplete unless D has this “specific intent” of further conduct upon entering. Common law larceny is an example of the second type of specific-intent offense. Larceny is the “trespassory (nonconsensual) taking and carrying away of the personal property of another with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property.” It is a “specific intent” offense because the actus reus (trespassorily taking and carrying away the personal property of another) must occur with a specific motive—not simply to temporarily dispossess the other person of the property, but to permanently deprive her of it. An example of the third variety of specific intent would be the offense, “receiving stolen property with knowledge it is stolen.” The specific intent of this offense is that the actor must be aware (have knowledge) of the attendant circumstance that the property was stolen. General intent cirme example: Common law battery is an “unlawful application of force upon the person of another.” In this context, “unlawful” means that the actor “wrongfully” committed the actus reus of the offense. This means that the actus reus (application of the force upon the person of another) must be committed in a morally blameworthy (wrongful) manner. This is the “general intent” of the offense. "

Answer 4

it requires proof of some particular mens rea—purpose, knowledge, recklessness, or negligence—as to each material element of the offense. This contrasts with the common law, where there might be a mens rearequirement as to one element but no mens rea required as to other elements

Answer 5

1. Purposely 2. Knowingly 3. Recklessly 4. Negligently

Answer 6

The defendant had an underlying conscious object to act.

Answer 7

The defendant is practically certaing that his conduct will cause a particular result

Answer 8

consciously disregards a substantial and unjustified risk

Answer 9

Not aware, but should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk. Don't use if it does not mention MPC and no specific intent given. Can use for Purposely, knowingly or recklessly

Answer 10

1. The defendant **must believe** that there is a **high probability that a fact exists** 2. The defendant must take d**eliberate actions to avoid learning of that fact** Accepted property suspecting that it was stolen and says “Don’t tell me where you got this property.” State v. Nations: Underage stripper case where owner purposefully or negligently did not ask for identification; conviction overturned because statute required knowledge not recklessness "

Answer 11

No men's rea requirment. The guilty act alon makes up the crime.

Answer 12

1. Statutory Rape 2. Selling Alcohol to a minor

Answer 13

1. Is it general intent , Specific Intent, or strict liability crime 2. Does the mistake relate to the speciific intent portion of the event (If specific intent. Like in larceny if no criminal intent to deprive them of property. If yes then defendant must be acquitted) Does not matter if mistake is reasonable or unreasonable 3. IF no, treat as if a general intent crime 4. General intent crime ( Is the individual acting with a morally cupable state of mind). Negates specific intent crime if mistake was reasonable, but not if unreaonable 5. A mistake of fact is never a defense for strict liability crimes. 6. Code dispenses with general and specific intent designations. Mistake of fact negates mens rea if it negates mens rea required to establish any elemen t of the offense"

Answer 14

1. Accused Conduct actually caused the criminal result 2. Accuse conduct was the legal cause of the criminal result

Answer 15

1. Act of God 2. Independent third party act or ommission 3. Commission of a victim BIG: If reasonably foreseeable then not a superceding intervening act

Answer 16

“But for the defendant’s voluntary act [or omission], would the social harm have occurred when it did?

Answer 17

Some jurisdictions "Simultaneious act by two or more people are sufficient to cause the resulting harm 1. Others will employ substantial facctor-Was D's conduct a substantial factor in resulting harm 2. MPC still uses but for test - but state result with great specificity Soem jurisdictions will not apply legal causation if the acts were subsequent from each other and you didn't know who caused the injury NOTE: The MPC does not apply the substantial factor test—it uses the “but for” test in all cases. However, the Commentary to the Code explains that, in deciding whether a defendant was a “but for” cause of a “result,” one would state the “result” with great specificity. In the current hypothetical, one would describe the result as “death by a bullet to the head and one to the heart.” Explained that way, D1 and D2 are both actual causes of the result, because V would not have died from two bullet wounds but for each defendant’s conduct! "

Answer 18

CMOIAFDI 1. Contributory negligence of the victim is not a defense 2. Minor deminimis causes are ignored by the law 3. Omissions are never sluperceding or intervening 4. ANy intendent consequende of an act is proximate (if you meant that they happen and they did) 5. Apparent safety doctrine-he “apparent safety” doctrine says that once the danger from the defendant is no longer present, we no longer consider that defendant a proximate cause. 6. Free, deliberate, informed human intervention "

Answer 19

was the actual result. . . .too remote or accidental to make the individual responsible

Answer 20

1. MPC is too remote or accidental (too trivial to cause the prescribed result) 2. Common law year and a day rule. It takes this amount of time to to rule out a person of homicide (if he suvives by this much). Note this is just for homicide...consider factors CMOIAFDI 3. Medical intervening cause (ambulance, brain surgery)Gross negligence breaks causation, but ordinary negligence does not 4. FORESEABILITY- If intervening cause is reasonably foreseable then does not cut off causal chain

Answer 21

An “intervening cause” is an actual cause (a “but for” cause) of social harm that arises after D’s causal contribution to the result.

Answer 22

The killing of a human being by a human being. Incluides suicide

Answer 23

Common law murder is a killing of a human being by another human being with malice aforethought. Common law manslaughter is Manslaughter is killing of a human being by another human being w/out malice aforethought

Answer 24

The intention or desire to do evil. Desire to cause pain, injury, or distress to another. Aforethought is previously in mind

Answer 25

born alive

Answer 26

they stopped breathing. Today is probably when they flatline

Answer 27

"a person kills another acts with the requisite “malice” if he possesses any one of four states of mind: (1) the intention to kill a human being- 2) intent to cause grievousl bodily injury - (3) an extremely reckless disregard for the value of human life (**Depraved heart**) - 4) Intent to commit a felony -

Answer 28

"a person kills another acts with the requisite “malice” if he possesses any one of four states of mind: (1) the intention to kill a human being-Knew or should have known that actions would cause death If murder divided into degrees by state: - Need Premedidation and deliberation-Prior though and reflection - No time is too short jurisdiction - Meaningful deliberation jurisdiction -can look at factors like preplanning, relationship to the victims, motive (2) knowledge that conduct would cause serious bodily injury was generally assimilated to intent. But needs an actual death. (3) an extremely reckless disregard for the value of human life (Depraved heart) - Wanton and wilfuld disregaon on an unreasoanlbe human risk. (4) the intention to commit a felony during the commission or attempted commission of which a death results. "

Answer 29

"a person kills another acts with the requisite “malice” if he possesses any one of four states of mind: (1) the intention to kill a human being-Knew or should have known that actions would cause death -Need Premedidation and deliberation-Prior though and reflection -No time is too short jurisdiction -Meaningful deliberation jurisdiction 2) intent to cause grievousl bodily injury -**knowledge that conduct would cause serious bodily**. But needs an actual death. (3) an extremely reckless disregard for the value of human life (**Depraved heart**) - **Wanton and wilfuld disregard on an unreasoanlbe human risk**. 4) Intent to commit a felony - **the intention to commit a felony during the commission or attempted commission of which a death results. Strict liability. Any felony. "**

Answer 30

(3) an extremely reckless disregard for the value of human life (Depraved heart) - Willful and wanton disregard to an unreasonable risk to human life

Answer 31

4) Intent to commit a felony - **the intention to commit a felony during the commission or attempted commission of which a death results. Strict liability. Any felony. "**

Answer 32

"Can turn into lesser degree of voluntary manslaughter if. Common Law: **Need provocation** The provocation **Created sudden heat of passion** (ordinary person standard) (need causal connection between the first two) (passion not reason) **No time to cool down** MPC: Must have acted under **extreme emotional disturbance** 2. Must have been a **reasoanble explanation** or excuse **for** his **extreme emotional disturbance** 3. Reasonableness determined from v**iewpoint of person in actor’s situation** (have to evaluate which characteristics constitute “situation”) **under the circumstances as he believes them to be** (both a subjective and an objective rule)"

Answer 33

adequate provocation if words are **accompanied with present intention/ability to cause bodily harm**

Answer 34

Capital Offenses, culpability

Answer 35

"1. Unintentional killings that occurs during the commission of some unlawful act not a felony (“misdemeanor manslaughter”) 2. Unintentional killings from a lawful act don unlawfully and without due caution

Answer 36

MDSR 1. The common law term “malice aforethought” is abandoned. A homicide constitutes murder if the killing is committed: (a) purposely; (b) knowingly; or (c) “recklessly under circumstances manifesting an extreme indifference to the value of human life.” Similarly to intent to kill murder (purposely) knew or should have known that actions will cause death (knowingly) recklessly=depraved heart murder 2. No longer have degrees of murder 3. Bans stric liability aspect of felony murder rule and Only allows felony murder with certain enumerated crimes 4. Reckless indifference (c) is presumed when a murder is committed during one of the enumerated felonies"

Answer 37

"Express malice- specific intent to kill the victim or inferred through the attendant circumstances Implied malice - i.e. by the use of a deadly weapon. killing is through gross recklessness, or accused persons actions, which demonstrate extreme indifference to the value of human life "

Answer 38

With malice aforethought but no premeditation and deliveration like you need in first degree (intent to kill murder +premeditaion+deliveration)

Answer 39

"1. MPC-Words alone are enough 2. No reasonable cooling off period in MPC. Could last longer 3. BOth a subjective and objective standard for MPC (reasonable person objective standard for Common law) "

Answer 40

"You can **Impute Malice through transferred intent** where it is **treated as a separate homicidal act.** The law basically presumes that if the defendant intended to commit an inherently dangerous felony, then the defendant should have foreseen that his actions would cause harm to others."

Answer 41

"**The elements of the felony must be proven for the felony murder ruel to apply and that a felony occured during the commission of the murder.** Note: in some jurisdictions you just have to prove taht the felony is inherently dangerous to human life "

Answer 42

"1. Deterrence - deters negligent and accidental killing during the commission of a felon 2. Transferred intent - The intent to commit the felony is transferred to the act of killing in order to find culpability for the felony 3. Retribution and general culpability - Evil mind justify severe punishment "

Answer 43

"The triggering Felony for a felony murder **must be independent or collateral to the act leading to the victims death**. Aggravated assault there is no felony murder. Robbery, kidnapping, carjacking ok. Rape, arson, burglary, ok. "

Answer 44

1. Agency Approach 2. Proximate Cause

Answer 45

Most courts apply the “agency” theory of felony-murder. Felony murder does not apply if the person who causes the death is a non felon

Answer 46

A felon may be liable by a death caused by a non felon if **the felon sets in motion the act that resulted in the persons death**

Answer 47

"Causal, Killing, Felony, Proximate cause"

Answer 48

An act of sexual intercourse including vaginal penetration however slight committed by a male to a female without her consent using force or threat of force. You have to prove that V resisted to the utmost. THere must be corroborating evidence in addition to V's own testimony. Reported the attack quickly (fresh complaint rule). Evidence for lack of chastity and prior sexual conduct was allowed to impeach her testimony. Males could not be raped. Wife could not be raped.

Answer 49

"1. Less difficult to prosecute 2. Rape shield laws prevent introduction of V's past sexual acts (only for physical evidence) 3. Males can be raped as well as woman 4. fresh complaint rule gone 5. Wife could be raped"

Answer 50

" Definition “A male who has sexual intercourse with a female not his wife is guilty if … he compels her to submit by force or by threat of imminent death, serious bodily injury, extreme pain or kidnapping, to be inflicted on anyone.” he Code also prohibits nonforcible sexual intercourse by a male with a female not his wife in other circumstances: (1) if he “substantially impaired her power to appraise or control her conduct by administering or employing without her knowledge drugs, intoxicants, or other means for the purpose of preventing resistance”; (2) if she was unconscious at the time of the intercourse; or (3) if she is under ten years of age. MPC § 213.1(1)(b)–(d). The MPC drafters defined a new sexual offense, less serious than rape (it is a felony of the third degree) to deal with three circumstances in which a male secures sexual intercourse with a female not his wife: (1) if “he compels her to submit by any threat that would prevent resistance by a woman of ordinary resolution”; (2) if he knows that she suffers from mental disease “which renders her incapable of appraising the nature of her conduct”; or (3) “he knows that she is unaware that a sexual act is being committed upon her or that she submits because she mistakenly supposed that he is her husband.” MPC 213.1(2) "

Answer 51

Rape when a person "engages in sexual intercourse . by forcible compulsion; [or] by threat of forcible compulsion. You have to look at the totality of the circumstances (like where it toook place, was she under duress)

Answer 52

ape is a general-intent offense. Therefore, most jurisdictions provide that a person is not guilty of rape if, at the time of penetration, he entertained a genuine and reasonable belief that the female voluntarily consented

Answer 53

Conduct that in ordinary circumstances would be criminal, but under these circumstances is justified

Answer 54

**At common law**, if there was a **strong public interes**t as to the justification defenses and **conduct was not justified unless it was performed for the public interest**. Like public officer justified to take a life to save school children

Answer 55

**The right to life can be forfeited by the holder of that right.** Like if you choose to do a dangerous felony and thus forfeit your right to life since you put yourself in that situation

Answer 56

An **affirmative right to protect his or her threatened moral interests**. **Focus on interest of the defendant**. Does not treat the victims death as scocially irrelevant like moral forfeiture. Treats the defendants conduct as affirmatively proper

Answer 57

Interests of the defendant is outweighed by those that he or she harms. Like trespassing to avoid tornado.

Answer 58

the actor believes that the c**onduct is necessary to avoid harm to himself or another;** (b) the **harm that the actor seeks to avoid is greater than that sought to be avoided** by the law prohibiting his conduct; and (c) there does **not exist any legislative intent to exclude the justification claimed by the actor** **NAH HAS NLI**

Answer 59

1. Immediate trheat of death or seriously bodily injury 2. A well grounded fear that the threat will be carried out 3. No reasonbale opportunity to escape the threaned tharm ITWGNR

Answer 60

Duress is and excuse and justification goes to the social harm. Duress negates teh actors blameworthiness (mens rea)...IT is an excuse not sure why she said justification

Answer 61

Homicide. No bar in MPC.

Answer 62

1. Allows for Murder. 2. Not restricted to threats of death or seriousl bodily injury just has to unlawuful (that a person with reasonable firmness would nto be able to resist)

Answer 63

May preclude the formation of specific intent. Lacked the capaicty so can't prove mens rea. Does not exculpate general intent crimes. Note: Involuntary intoxication negates mens rea of both general and specific intent crimes.

Answer 64

1. Have to be able to assist attorney with the proceeding 2. Reasonable and rational understanding of what's going on ....THink of mentally ill/not able to communicate

Answer 65

Be brought up at any time. Even at trial.

Answer 66

1. Presumption that person is competent to stand trial 2. Defendant must prove incompetence by a preponderance of the evidence ...Note you can be not guilty by reason of insanity or guilty, but mentally incompetent. Also note that shafia said preponderance of the evidence, but this is for cal. Fed is clear and convincing

Answer 67

Must prove insanity at the time the crime was committed

Answer 68

M’Naghten test of insanity 2. MPC 3. Irresistable Impulse 4. Durham Test/Product test"

Answer 69

"The M'Naghten Test: 1. A mental disease or defect resulted in the D being: (2) unable to know the wrongfulness of his conduct; or (3) unable to understand the nature and quality of his acts. ...Many jurisdictions will use apprciate instead of know which. Apreciated is suppose to be a deeper and broader understanding then mere knowledge...like MPC 3. is cognitive and 2 is moral prong She says go with the statute that says it is. But if no statute then go with M'naghten test" MDDUKUU

Answer 70

"The Model Penal Code Test: 1. As a result of a mental disease or defect, the D was: (2) unable to appreciate the criminality of his conduct; OR ( 3) unable to conform his actions to the law. Appreciated is suppose to be a deeper and broader understanding then mere knowledge" MDDUAUC

Answer 71

"1.Irresistable uncontrollable Impulse 2. As a result of a mental disease 3That rendered you powerless to resist" IU RM PR

Answer 72

The accused is not criminally responsible if his unlawful act was the product of mental disease or mental defect. NCRMDD

Answer 73

Excuse **Exonerates conduct** that would otherwise be criminal. Justification the actor was acting to **avoid the greater harm to society.**

Answer 74

Cases in which a **mentally disordered person believes that God has instructed or commanded** her to do what she is now on trial for committing

Answer 75

"1. showing that his **mental capacity was so diminished** that he **could not have had the intent required to commit the crime** he is charged with 2. Only available for specific intent crimes 3, Negates Mens rea (lacked the specific inent to commit crime 4. Not an excuse, can't prove an element the specific Men's rea"

Answer 76

Lesser legal responsibility. Not fully responsilbe. less culpable even if all elements are mit.

Answer 77

1. Attempt 2. Conspiracy 3. Solicitation

Answer 78

Allows punishment of the actor even though he hasn't consummated crime htat is object of his efforts. Lesser commited crime then the concluded crime

Answer 79

**Rule of merger applies**. Can't be convicted of the attempt and the completed crime.

Answer 80

provide a basis for law enforemcen officer to inetervene

Answer 81

1, Complete Attempt 2. Incomplete Attempt

Answer 82

Completed attmpt - the actor t**akes every ste**p as planned but is **unsuccessful in producing the intended result**

Answer 83

the actor **takes some steps** towards the completion of the act, but then **stopped or is prevented from continuing** forward

Answer 84

**Intent to engage in the conduct constituting tht attempt**, the conduct by which the actor crosses the line from preparation into attempt **Intent to commit the crime that is the object of the attempt**

Answer 85

“substantial step toward the commission of the crime,” and the steps must be “strongly corroborative” of the criminal intent.

Answer 86

Factual impossibiliity asjs whether the failure to complete the crime is due to an unforseen fact Legal impossibility asks if the attempt where to have been successful, would it have constituted a completed criminal act

Answer 87

How close the actor came to completing the actual crime.

Answer 88

The act must be more than mere preparation (beginnin of perpetration)

Answer 89

Renunciation of Criminal Purpose Not guilty of attempt (1. ) **completely and voluntarily renounces** her criminal intent; and (2. ) she **abandons** her effort to commit the crime **or prevents** it from being committed; and **CVR abandons/prevents**

Answer 90

The actus reus of a solicitation is consummated when the actor communicates the words or performs the physical act that constitutes the invitation, request, command, or encouragement of the other person to commit an offense (The offense can be a felony or misdeamenaor concerning breach of the peace or obstruction of justice Note solicitaiton is completed as soon as the communication is communicated. No action by either party is needed for the completion of the crime. CWPAIRCE

Answer 91

The intent to perform the act constituting the solicitation And the specific intent that the other person actually complies

Answer 92

Under the common law the offense has to be a felony or a misdeamenor involving breach of the peace or obstruction of justice. The MPC any Felony or misdeamenor will do.

Answer 93

Mark and move on

Answer 94

(1) completely and voluntarily renounces her criminal intent; and (2) persuades the solicited party not to commit the offense or otherwise prevents her from committing the crime. CVR Persuades/ prevents

Answer 95

1. An agreement to commit an unlawful act (express or implied) Unlawful act must be a crime for MPC 2. Betwen two or mor people (MPC agreement can be 1 and agent of govt) 3 An overt act in furtherance of the crime (for NON COMMON LAW) Minority and Common law. No overt act is necessary. majority view is that an overt act is necessary Actus reus is the actua agreement expressed or implied

Answer 96

Conspiracy is a dual-intent offense. First, the parties must intend to form an agreement (the actus reus of the conspiracy). Second, they must intend that the object(s) of their illegal objective be achieved. (makes this a specific intent crime)

Answer 97

NO, can be convicted of both the conspiracy and the underlying crime

Answer 98

You just need something. Unlike attempt that requires a substantial step

Answer 99

once the person agrees

Answer 100

1. The offense not committed in furtherance of a conspiracy 2. Event does not fall within the scope of the conspiracy 3. If the event could not have been reasonably foreseen as a necessary of the unlawful agreement

Answer 101

Co-conspirators are held responsible fro the **reasonable foreseeable actions of their coconspirators underatken in furtherance of the conspiracy.**

Answer 102

No mens rea here. Need intent to join. Crime of recklessness or negligence is not enough

Answer 103

multiple inchoate offenses aimed towards do not merge the same goal do not merge. can be convicted of mulple inchoate offenses. minority view

Answer 104

No they can be implied through actions

Tuck COPY COPY Flashcards

(134 cards)