US Crim 2023 Flashcards

Question

Negligence (Common Law and MPC)

Answer 1

Involves disregarding a risk that you'll cause a particular result but not being aware of it. Gross deviation from the standard of care of a reasonable person.

Answer 2

Awareness of the risk that will cause a particular result. Recklessness - aware of it Negligence - not aware of it

Answer 3

No malice and willfulness

Answer 4

No mens rea is required only actus reus.

Answer 5

 Facts: The appellant is appealing her conviction of aggravated child abuse.  Decision: Reversed and remanded for a new trial  Reasoning: The charge to the jury included a prejudicially erroneous definition of the word “maliciously” – Here, you can punish a child but NOT maliciously * To prove that the defendant overstepped the legal limits in this case, the State must have proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the punishment allegedly imposed upon the child was motivated by malice (trial court) * ** Failure correctly to instruct a jury on a disputed element of a crime is a fundamental error * Differences between actual malice or malice in fact and legal malice o Actual Malice = wickedness and evil intent, (old understanding of mailce, ultimately adopted by the florida court) The court needs to prove "malice."

Answer 6

 Facts: The case is concerned with federal prisoners who escaped from custody. Upon their recapture, they were charged with violating 18 U.S.C. s751(a), which governs escape from federal custody—the COA after the defendant’s testimony reversed the conviction and remanded for new trial. The reasoning for this was that the trial court should have allowed the jury to consider the evidence of coercive conditions in determining whether the respondents had formulated the requisite intent to sustain a conviction under the statute. The Court: some level of culpability is required. Lower court interpreted the statute to require specific intent. Higher court said no, knowledge and awareness are enough for conviction. The court does not need to prove that they also intended to avoid confinement. Although they said, well, the only reason we left was to avoid the fires and the beatings, but its not like they left and then turn themselves in. It's not like they said, all right, we're gonna turn ourselves into like the US marshals or something like that.

Answer 7

- Anytime you see that uses "with the intent to" this denotes specific intent. ex. burglary. Two levels of intent: intent to break in and intent to commit crime inside. Anything that is not specific intent is general intent. Under Common law crimes the most well known general intent crime was rape. Rape - Carnal knowledge by a man of a woman, not his wife, forcibly and against her will. And it matters because if a specific intent crime is charged. The prosecution has to independently prove the specific intent element, beyond a reasonable doubt.

Answer 8

A aims to kill B with a grenade but throws to C. Bad aim. Under doctrine of transferred intent, you are said to have intentionally killed C. Now, on rare occasions, you may have a statute with a specific victim identified, say the President of the United States presidential assassination statute makes it a crime to assassinate the president. Okay, well, that's a specific victim. So if you intend to kill the president, and you end up killing some bystander who isn't the President or you can't be convicted of assassinating the president, right.

Answer 9

In criminal law, Wilful Blindness or ignorance of law refers to the 'deliberate avoidance of knowledge of the facts'; that is, a person avoids gaining knowledge as a means of avoiding self-incrimination. Classic example: transporting drugs to the country. Positive knowledge is not required. Where willful blindness applies it replaces positive knowledge. Treat willful blindness as knowledge.

Answer 10

the Model Penal Code has provision for this. It says awareness of a high probability of the existence of an attendant circumstance unless the person actually believes that it does not exist. Treat willful blindness as knowledge.

Answer 11

subjective awareness of a high probability of the existence of a fact and deliberate action to avoid learning that the fact exists.

Answer 12

* Defendant was driving a tractor on the highway, and pulled over to the side of the road to allow a car to pass him. Olsen then turned left to cross the highway. As he was crossing, Olsen collided with a car traveling eastbound on the highway, killing the driver of the car. The State of South Dakota charged Olsen with second-degree manslaughter under South Dakota Codified Law § 22-16-20 for the reckless killing of the driver. * South Dakota law provides that a person acts recklessly when he consciously and unjustifiably disregards a substantial risk. At the preliminary hearing, the highway patrol trooper who interviewed Olsen after the accident testified that Olsen said he did not see the vehicle before attempting the turn despite looking both ways. An important factor in determining reckless intent is whether the actor is actually aware of the high degree of risk he has created as a result of his conduct. Such awareness is what separates a reckless actor from a negligent one. * A person who acts carelessly or inadvertently in regard to a substantial risk, but remains unaware of such risk, acts negligently, even where he should have known of the risk * In a case where a defendant has violated a law while operating a motor vehicle, he will be criminally liable for any deaths resulting from such violation only if he acted in reckless disregard for the safety of others. Mere negligence does not suffice for liability. * In this case, Olsen failed to yield to the right of way while driving his tractor on the highway. Although Olsen may have acted carelessly or inadvertently when he turned his tractor to cross the highway, there is no evidence to suggest that Olsen’s conduct rises above negligence to the level of recklessness.

Answer 13

Some offences do not require mens rea. And to the scope of the punishment, strict liability crimes, tend to be public welfare offenses and Malam prohibitive offenses. Regulatory offences, like mishandling toxic materials or transporting toxic materials. Strict Liability crime tends to have lighter punishment. The lighter the punishment, the more likely we are to say it not strict liability.

Answer 14

Was mens rea required to commit the crime? The court noted that the silence as to the mens rea requirement in § 5861(d) did not suggest a congressional intent that such requirement be eliminated. The court noted that the potentially harsh penalty attached to a violation of § 5861(d) provided further support for the proposition that a mens rea requirement existed. The court said no this should not be interpreted as strict liability offence. So if staples really was ignorant of the automatic firing function of the firearm. He can't be convicted. The court prefer the proof of mens rea.

Answer 15

 Facts: The appellant contends that he cannot be convicted if he did not have a positive knowledge that a controlled substance was concealed in the automobile he drove over the border willful blindness applies it replaces positive knowledge * The defendant deliberately avoided positive knowledge of the presence of the contraband to avoid responsibility in the event of discovery * Deliberate ignorance and positive knowledge are equally culpable * To act “knowingly” is not necessarily to act only with positive knowledge but also to act with an awareness of the high probability of the existence of the fact in question – take steps to avoid the truth * In this case, the government must prove “beyond a reasonable doubt, that if the defendant was not actually aware…his ignorance in that regard was solely and entirely a result of … a conscious purpose to avoid learning the truth”

Answer 16

No. See Staples v. US Supreme Court.

Answer 17

A mistake of fact is a defense to a specific intent crime if it negates the specific mens rea, whether the mistake is reasonable or unreasonable. A mistake of fact is a defense to a general intent crime if the mistake is reasonable; no defense if the mistake is unreasonable. A mistake of fact is never a defense to a strict liability crime (No mens rea to negate)

Answer 18

Any mistake of fact is a defence if it negates any element of the offence.

Answer 19

Applying Common Law Mistake of Fact: I walk into a restaurant it's a rainy day I'm carrying an umbrella. I put my umbrella down and like a little umbrella holder with a bunch of other umbrellas. Then when I leave the restaurant, I grabbed the umbrella and I'm walking. Turns out I've grabbed the wrong number doesn't belong to me belong somebody else. But I thought it was mine. Honestly, and I thought the Umbrella was mine. They look the same, roughly the same size and same color. Just made a mistake. Can I be prosecuted for larceny taking and carrying away the property of another with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property? No. My mistake that this umbrella was mine, negates my intent to permanently deprive. I didn't intend to permanently deprive the owner of the property I thought it was that applies even if my mistake was unreasonable. I you know, I go in with a you know, big golf umbrella it's multicolor. I ended up walking out with a smaller umbrella. it's a single customer It's probably an unreasonable mistake on those facts but as long as I made it in good faith, You know, I say oh gosh, I you know, I forgot what kind of umbrella I forgot the color size, whatever. honest mistake. Right, that's still a defense.

Answer 20

Common Law Standard: See if mistake of fact negates the specific mens rea. Reasonableness does not matter. MPC: See if it negates any element of the offence.

Answer 21

Common Law: See if the mistake is reasonable or unreasonable. If reasonable, yes. If not, no. MPC: See if it negates any element of the offence.

Answer 22

Common Law: No defense MPC: See if the mistake negates any element of the offence.

Answer 23

Now let's say I take I take heroin from x in a drug transaction, believing it to be cocaine.So I'm here to buy cocaine. I think he's selling me cocaine is up these turns out he's selling me heroin. So I get prosecuted for knowingly receiving a controlled substance. Well, I claim I made a mistake. I thought it was okay. So my mistake under those circumstances does not negate the mental element. It does not relieve me of my culpability as it would in the previous examples

Answer 24

Sexton held a gun he was in an argument with Matthews. A witness Jones heard Matthew say there are no bullets in that gun. sextant and says you think there are no bullets in this gun? Matthew said yeah. And then the gun went off and killed Matthews. Sexton says can't be convicted of reckless manslaughter in New Jersey. That New Jersey follows the Model Penal Code approach on this so the question is whether Sexton was reckless in his mistake about the gun. Court says the culpable mental state is recklessness, conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustified risk that death will result in the conduct, what mistaken believe will negate the state of mind. A faultless or merely careless mistake may negate the reckless state of mind and provide a defense right but if he is reckless as to his mistake, he has to be convicted. Sexton is being prosecuted not in spite of his mistake, but because of his mistake. his mistake did not negate his recklessness because his mistake constituted his recklessness. So the question for the jury is whether Sexton's jumping to an erroneous conclusion about the gun was reckless or not.

Answer 25

look at your crime, See whether it's specific or general intent under the common law. ask whether the mistake relates to the specific mens rea of the crime and if so, the mistake is a defense or a general intent crime asked whether the mistake was reasonable or unreasonable. And if it was terrible, then you get the defense. Under the Model Penal Code, Simply ask whether there is ask what the underlying culpability is required by the crime and then ask what level of, of culpability. The mistake was made under what level of culpability the mistake was made.

Answer 26

General Rule: ignorance of law is NO excuse Model Penal Code -- legal mistakes might be relevant if knowledge or awareness of the law is a material element of the offense Exception: 1) As a failure of proof, negating the mens rea. This occurs when the law requires legal knowledge and awareness, and the defendant makes a mistake that would negate proof of such knowledge ex. When we say legal knowledge that means knowledge, that what you are doing is a crime. That's unlawful. (rare). * 2) As an affirmative defense. Same jurisdictions allow this where the defendant acts in reasonable reliance on an official and authoritative interpretation of the law that turns out to be wrong or invalid ex. We allow the defendants if the person acts in reasonable reliance on an official interpretation of the law, even if that interpretation turns out to be wrong or invalid reasonable reliance on the official interpretation of the law and official interpretation. Ex. president or any other official authority.

Answer 27

 Facts: Appellants seized an individual suspected of committing murder in order to bring him to justice. As a result of this action, appellants were convicted of kidnapping under N.Y. Penal Law § 1250. In an effort to overturn their convictions, appellants argued that the trial court impermissibly ruled against the introduction of evidence which supported their innocence. Specifically, appellants contended that they acted with the mental state of believing they were under the authority of law. The Court of Appeals agreed and set aside the verdict requiring a new trial. * The Court held that if appellants could prove they acted in good faith, such evidence might bar penal liability for kidnapping o The Court of Appeals set aside the verdict convicting appellants of kidnapping where they were entitled to the production of evidence showing that they seized a suspect with the authority of law. Essentially, they were entitled to proof regarding their good faith intent. (The act required legal knowledge and they did not have the knowledge - mistake of law)

Answer 28

the reasonable Reliance based approach, Marrero, focuses on New York's statutory mistake defense for reasonable Reliance, Marrero had brought a an unlicensed firearm into like a nightclub or social club in New York, which is against the law, but the law provides an exception for peace officers and Marrero is a federal prison guard. But he is a federal prison. guard in Connecticut. Well, that's okay. because the statute says that the exception includes guards in any Correctional Institution. and Marrero says, well, any Correctional Institution means any Correctional Institution right turns out no, even though he wins at the lower court level on appeal, the appellate court says oh no that statute only applies to New York prison guards. Not just any old prison guard but just New York prison doors and he's not a New York prison guard he's prison guard Connecticut. I mistakenly thought that the statute apply to any prison guard, and apparently applies only to New York ones. Oops. my fault, I made a mistake. But I reasonably relied on an official interpretation of the law, which was the law itself. and the New York Court of Appeals says no no you didn't really rely on the law Moraira, what did you rely upon you relied upon your interpretation of the law and it's not the same thing. You are not an official interpreter of the law in New York. (He based on his own interpretation of the law while he is not the authority and he relied on no other authority)

Answer 29

Anytime you see a federal statute enacted by Congress that uses the phrase willfully, that statute requires legal knowledge and requires knowledge that what you did was unlawful. True

Answer 30

Cheek went to a seminar and seminar told him not to file tax returns because the federal income tax is unconstitutional. So he believed this apparently and said, Well, okay, I don't have to file tax returns. I don't have to claim my income. He was prosecuted, but the federal tax statute requires willfulness. But you willfully failed file a tax return. So cheek says, Well, I willfully failed to file a tax return because I didn't think I was legally obligated to do so. If the jury believed that she in good faith believed that his wages did not constitute income that would have to be reported on a income tax return, then the government will have failed to establish the mens rea of wills

Answer 31

Two kinds of Causation: Actual Causation (But-for causation, Causation-in-fact) Proximate Causation The accused must satisfy both elements. Must be both Actual Cause and Proximate Cause.

Answer 32

But for cause, Actual Cause. The result would not have occurred but-for the defendant's voluntary conduct

Answer 33

Multiple but-for-causes We look at whether the causes made the person die faster. Too many causes. We cannot figure out which one is the but-for causes. Two approaches: substantial factor test, and Acceleration Test

Answer 34

Even if the the defendant is the cause-in-fact, at common law, the defendant is not guilty unless she is also the proximate (legal) cause. Proximate cause focuses on reasonable foreseeability: if the result was foreseeable, then the defendant is the proximate cause.

Answer 35

If the cause is not the main cause of death but is one of the substantial cause of the death, i.e sped up the death or was a huge factor in the chain of the causes. Although the victim will die, but the factor was either substantial or accelerate the death of the victim. Then under this test, the offender could still be charged.

Answer 36

Usually when there are multiple forces act on the victim, such that those forces intervene in the original chain of causation. The legal question is whether the intervening force actually supersedes the acts of the original actor, breaking the chain. If the intervening cause is responsive, original actor D is still the proximate cause unless the intervening cause of both freakish and unforseeable. If the intervening cause is coincidental (and thus not responsive), the defendant is generally no longer the proximate cause. However, D is still the proximate cause ONLY if the intervening cause was reasonably foreseeable (in other words, if the intervention is coincidental, the chain of causation is broken if the intervening cause is unforeseeable). However, if the victim reaches a place of apparent safety, then D is no longer the cause even if victim died later. This will break the chain. If the victim has engaged in a free-deliberate-informed intervention, then D is no longer the cause even if victim died later. This will break the chain.

Answer 37

The factor that determined whether intevening cause will break the chain or not.

Answer 38

Consequences happened as the defendent intended to have it but without being a cause to that consequence, if D a cause now? Yes.

Answer 39

Killing of a human being by another. Murder and Manslaughter. Homicide by itself is not always a crime; for example, self-defence or killing in war are justified.

Answer 40

The Killing of a human being by another human being with malice aforethought.

Answer 41

Malice: Intent to kill Intent to inflict grievous bodily injury resulting in death. Reckless indifference to human life (the depraved heart) Felony murder (death resulting from commission or attempted commission of underlying felony)

Answer 42

To distinguish among levels of culpability.

Answer 43

Something is murder and killing is murder if it is done purposely or knowingly because malice is not a mens rea a term under the code don't have to worry about proving malice for purposes of MPC. Defines murder as purposely or knowingly killing another, or killing with extreme recklessness. Premeditation.

Answer 44

Intentional murder in many jurisdictions requires premeditation. Three primary views: Twinkling of an eye: Premeditation can arise instantly, almost simultaneously with the killing. (see carroll) (Pen) Cool Reflection: other jurisdictions require some time to elapse between contemplating the killing and carrying it out. (see Guthrie) (Vir) Modern days: In the form of the intent to kill, and the execution of that intent is of sufficient duration.

Answer 45

Further explicit way of saying we had to think about and even plan the killing. Walker case where the court said it must be a plan beforehand. Since walker didn't know the victim, it can only be said that the situation got out of control too quickly.

Answer 46

The difference is Malice.

Answer 47

Voluntary and Involuntary Manslaughter can be intentional killing. Manslaughter is a reduction from murder. It is not really a defense of manslaughter. Manslaughter is still a serious crime. It is more of a mitigation from murder.

Answer 48

Intentional killing as well. A killing done in the sudden heat of passion (No time to cool off), as a result of adequate provocation, is voluntary manslaughter. Requirement: 1. Adequate provocation 2. Sudden heat of passion 3. No time to cool 4. Nexus between passion, provocation and killing.

Answer 49

It is calculated to inflame the passions of a reasonable person such that he would be driven to kill. - Not just any provocation will do. It must be the kind of provocation the law deems adequate for justifying a reduction to manslaughter: "Calculated to inflame the passion of a reasonable man and tend to cause him to act for the moment from passion rather than reason." - Words alone are not legally adequate provocation. - Verbal threat is an exception and is treated differently

Answer 50

Is a killing with ordinary recklessness, or a killing that would otherwise be murder but is committed under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance for which there is reasonable explanation of excuse.

Answer 51

the intent to kill was a form of express malice. first degree murder

Answer 52

If the defendant intends to inflict grievous injury, acts with a depraved heart, or commits felony murder. Implied malice could be a depraved heart or extreme recklessness. Second degree killing

Answer 53

Knowledge or purpose.

Answer 54

No, they use extreme emotional disturbance. It doesn't require a contemporaneous triggering event. There has to be some triggering events, some kind of provocative act, something that triggers the extreme emotional disturbance. But it doesn't have to be contemporaneous with the defendants loss of self control. Although it often will be it doesn't have to be.

Answer 55

Some examples will trigger this are: extremely unusual and overwhelming stress that would cause the average reasonable person under the same circumstances to experience a loss of self-control and be over born by intense feelings such as passion, anger, distress, grief, excessive agitation. And in fact, the Model Penal Code allows for jurisdictions to employ both a hybrid reasonable or hybrid objective and subjective standard..

Answer 56

Recklessness in homicide is often prosecuted as either involuntary manslaughter or murder. If it is not depraved heart murder or 2nd-degree murder then it is involuntary manslaughter. The determination of recklessness is very fact-specific.

Answer 57

the court determine this based on the nature of the defendant's conduct - the more depraved the act or the more extreme the risk-taking, the more likely it is murder rather than involuntary manslaughter. So these distinction depend heavily upon specific facts of the case.

Answer 58

Follows along the same theory is felony murder, which is a death occurs during the commission of an underlying misdemeanor rather than an underlying felony. So you commit a low level crime and misdemeanour offense that then result in death. We charged with manlaughter. The court did not have to prove any separate mens rea or any separate recklessness for the killing. It was sufficient that the state was able to prove the underlying misdemeanor which was the violation of pyrotechnic devices statute. Only need to prove the underlying misdemeanor.

Answer 59

* The defendant was charged with attempted murder of her ex-husband, after she chased him and hit him with her car * The defendant argued that a defense of EED was warranted because on the date of the incident, the stress she felt from her divorce, along with financial difficulties and other emotional problems, overwhelmed her ability to act rationally and caused her to lose all self-control. * Decision: COA decision reversed, case remanded to trial court to re-evaluate evidence in support of EED defense * The court of appeals reasoned that to be eligible for an extreme emotional distress defense instruction, a defendant must show that the “defendant’s loss of self-control be in reaction to a highly provocative triggering event” that is “contemporaneous with the defendant’s loss of self-control o The COA erred when requiring her to show this – because this language does not appear in the statute and this standard is more demanding than the language of the statute and case law requires * Rather, a reaction to an event must be evaluated in its broader context. This context is relevant, maybe essential, to acquire an accurate picture of the past experiences and emotions that give meaning to that reaction. Those past experiences must be considered to determine whether an individual is acting “under the influence of extreme emotional distress" that the average normal person would feel triggered. (Reasonable person standard)

Answer 60

Depraved Heart murder requires implied malice and if the recklessness was so extreme then the malic doesn't go away. Involuntary manslaughter: no malie found. only recklessness and negligence.

Answer 61

Qualifying felony + death No need to prove mens rea. ex. In order to have murder, you can have a completely accidental kill and still have murder under this felony murder theory. So think about those right? Think about how this this works. Right? guy walks into a convenience store. He's going to rob the convenience store. walks up to the teller walks up to the cashier And you know decides to allow his gun flashing in front of the cashier is no plan on using the gun no intention of using the gun doesn't want to kill the cashier at all just wants to use wants to scare him a little bit in order to get the money.

Answer 62

Commission or attempted commission of an underlying felony resulting in death was murder. The underlying felony, resulting in death, was sufficient to establish malice. death could be intended or negligent or accidental The prosecutor need not prove any mens rea for the killing, only for the underlying felony. (Traditional) exception: Michigan has felony murder statute but requires proof of a mens rea as to the killing. Felony murder could be 1st or 2nd degree murder. Quite controversial.

Answer 63

T. You have to prove the felony in order to have felony murder. If you cannot prove the mens rea of the felony, then there is no felony murder.

Answer 64

Limitation on Felony Murder the felony merges into the killing And because it merges into the killing, It therefore disappears from our formula And therefore, you cannot apply the felony murder rule. Let's say for example that the defendant assaults his wife with a deadly weapon. Right? it shoots her with a Now, we could say, the defendant command and assault with a deadly weapon which is a felony, it resulted in her death, therefore we apply the felony murder rule and this is murder, But we don't do that. We say the assault with a deadly weapon merges into the killing. another example. Now let's say the defendant arrives home from work. She finds her husband in bed having sex with another woman.so defendant stabs and kills her husband. Now ordinarily, that's voluntary manslaughter. That's classic voluntary manslaughter. Witnessing your spouse engaged in adultery Well, voluntary manslaughter though is a felony. And so since the defendant committed a felony and a death resulted that must be murder because it's felony murder, right? Well, that's absurd. It's a classic manslaughter situation if we turn that into murder, just because it's felony murder. In the statute, it will provide numerated felonies and unnumerated felonies. Numberated felonies will apply the merger rule. Unnumberated felonies will be felony murder.

Answer 65

If you commit an underlying felony that is not inherently dangerous to human life, then in a jurisdiction that follows this rule, the felony murder rule would not apply. In other words, for the felony murder rule to apply, the underlying felony must be inherently dangerous to human life. Whether the felony is inherently dangerous is judged case by case.

Answer 66

whether the killing was committed in the perpetration of or in furtherance of the underlying felony. Factors: Causal limits Time and distance limits Identity of the killer (Agency Approach v. Proximate Cause Approach) ex. I robbed a bank and when I fleed in a car I killed a pedestrian. Felony murder? Yes. Because I was in immediate flight from the felony. ex. Now carrying an unlicensed firearm in your car is a felony Now let's say he strikes and kills a pedestrian.He has literally committed a killing While he was committing a felony.But there is no causal connection between those things.So in all of these circumstances, we will not make the defendant guilty of felony murder. you may be guilty of other things right? Of course. He's not guilty of felony murder.

Answer 67

Was the killing commited by the felon or co-felon. Agency Approach: Cashier killed a bystander. THe felon is not responsible. Proximate Cause approach: the chain of the event leads back to the felon, so the felon is responsible for the killing.

Answer 68

Battery is an unlawful application of physical contact in an injurious or offensive manner. The application of physical force could be direct or indirect. Not just any physical contact will do it has to be the kind of physical contact that results in injury or offense. Subway touching is not battery.

Answer 69

In these modern jurisdictions, and assault is either a harmful touching and attempted harmful touching or placing the victim and reasonable apprehension of bodily harm. Basically combines assault and battery together.

Answer 70

kidnapping, kidnapping, a common law is unlawfully confining or carrying away A person with force or the threat of force or by deception. Unlawfully confining or carrying away It's called asportation. A person with force or the threat of force or by deception. Force theory or deception theory Confinment without transportation is enough to be deemed as kidnapping.

Answer 71

Old theft crimes: Larceny Embezzlement False Pretenses Robbery

Answer 72

Robbery is simply an aggravated larceny

Answer 73

The trespassory taking and carrying away of the property of another, with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property. Grand Larceny is taking property worth a minimum value. Defendant need not know the value of the property. Specific intent crime - must show specific intent to steal, at the time of the taking. If property is taken with the intent to return. This is not larceny (usually this requires return within reasonable time and ability to do so without condition. Taking (asportation) means any movement and it means taking possession not mere custody. Even if the control over the items only for a short amount of time.

Answer 74

Physical control over the item, but a limited right to use it. So if the person is merely given custody of the item, and then they take off with it that's the taking, because they were never given possession by the owner. But if you actually give over possession to someone, and then they take off with it, that is not a larceny, because they have not taken possession from the owner.

Answer 75

when you have physical control and a virtually unlimited right to use it.

Answer 76

Has to be unconditional. Even if one has the intention to return the property but without the ability to do so that renders the intention illusory.

Answer 77

is taking property and carrying it away from the person of another by force or the threat of force. It's an aggravated larceny of forcible larceny. Can you have a mistake of fact for robbery. Yes.

Answer 78

Burglary is the breaking and entering of the dwelling of another at nighttime with the intent to commit a felony inside

Answer 79

Robbery requires presence of the victim whereas burglary does not. Without the person even knowing it. They'll realize it in the morning. Oh, somebody broke in and we had a home invasion. (Burglary)

Answer 80

Arson is another life burglary offence against the habitation.

Answer 81

Someone has tried to perpetrate crimes but might not have finished the crime or someone might have begun the planning for a crime but not finished the crime necessarily.

Answer 82

a person, with intent to commit a crime, performs an act, beyond mere preparation, toward commission of the offense. - specific intent crime - two intents to prove - beyond mere preparation if the attempt to commit the crime is a felony the attempt is a felony. . Generally an attempt occurs when a person with the intent to commit an offense performs an act beyond mere preparation toward the commission of the offence.

Answer 83

It depends as there are two intents that need to be proved by the Crown. 1. Intent to commit an act that is necessary for the commission of a crime or an act that will result in the commission of the crime (Pulling the trigger) 2. Intent for the result of the crime (specific Intent to Kill A) So if D wants to kill a duck beside A by pulling the trigger and missed A. It is said that D doesn't have the intent to kill A.

Answer 84

Requires knowledge since MPC doesn't distinguish specific intent and general intent.

Answer 85

Impossible to be intent to be reckless. Those seem inconsistent with one another and most jurisdictions will for example, say there can be no attempt to commit an involuntary manslaughter on the ground that it is impossible to intend to be reckless.

Answer 86

Yes, both intents must be specific.

Answer 87

Can you specifically intend felony murder? No specific intent that needs to be proven for felony murder and therefore you cannot attempt a felony murder.

Answer 88

Attempts require an act beyond mere preparation toward commission of the offense.

Answer 89

2 specific intents and actus reus more than mere preparation

Answer 90

Depends on what jurisdiction you're in: 1-5 all common law 1. Slight Act Test: Which allows liability at the design of a person to commit the crime is clearly shown and the actor commits even slight act in furtherance of that design. 2. Physical proximity test: where the defendant must be close in time and space to the final act that completes the crime and the dangerous proximity test. ( 3. Dangerous proximity test: how close were the defendant close to finishing the crime (Not necessarily regarding the geographic location) 4. Unequivocally test: whether the defendants conduct unequivocally demonstrates that it's an intent to commit the crime. loops back to mental elements . 5. Probable desistance test: which requires that the defendants conduct would result in a completed crime in the ordinary natural course of events if the actor had not yet been interrupted by a third party. 6. MPC test (Substantial step test) : It must be corroborative of actors criminal purpose.

Answer 91

Substantial step that corroborate the crime purpose. Ex. bringing the rat poison to the school is counted as a substantial step to attempted murder. At the scene of the crime, the poison is close enough.

Answer 92

Impossibility

Answer 93

Factual Impossibility: actor intends to complete the crime but is prevented from doing so by forces that made it impossible. This is not a defense. Ex. I tried to steal your macbook, it turns out when I put my hand inside your bag there's nothing inside your bag. Not a defense. Legal Impossibility: Actor intends to complete an act that he beleives to be criminal but it is not (either because it was a crime but the criminal law has been repealed, or the actor was simply mistaken about whether the act was a crime. This is a defense. ex. the law doesn't require subscription on this substance but A forged the subscription to get the drugs. (legal impossiblity to be a crime even though A think it is.) Legal Impossibility is the only defense.

Answer 94

Abandons the common law distinction between legal and factual impossibilities. MPC asks whether if the facts werre as actor believed them to be, her act would be criminal. If so, she is guilty. If not, then no guilt.

Answer 95

No. Factual Impossibility is not a defense.

Answer 96

Not clear if it is in common law as a defense. It is widely accepted nowadays as a defense for attempt. MPC has this. Must have an attempt. It requires a change of heart.

Answer 97

- A Criminal conspiracy is an agreement between two or more people to commit an unlawful act. - Requires specific intent to achieve the conspiratorial goal. - the darling of the prosecutors nursery.

Answer 98

MPC requires an overt act but common law doesn't.

Answer 99

True. It can be trivial, legal, preparatory.

Answer 100

True. If you murdered someone, you can only be charged with murder not both murder and attempted murder. However, you can be charged with both Conspiracy to murder and murder.

Answer 101

- Don't need to be formalized in writing. - Common law required a Bilateral Agreement - two or more people to the unlawful act and both are committed to achieving it. ex. what if one of the parties is a undercover police who formed an agreement or that you are too afraid to say no or forced to agree...in these situations there is no agreement under common law standard. - MPC: Unilateral agreement: two or more people are needed to form an agreement but only one of them needs to be sincere about it. This allows for conspiracies when police go undercover.

Answer 102

Conspiracy requires specific intent or purpose to achieve the criminal goal.

Answer 103

A cop and a few guys on the internet fantasize about kidnapping a woman. However, after the date that was set by them, none of them actually followed up. There was no kidnapping. No one actually thought that kidnapping was actually going to be carried out. The court decided that it is pure fantasy and there were no intent because they knew it wasn't going to happen.

Answer 104

Yes. Because now the owner has interest in the prositution's financial success. And this can be proved to be the intent for conspiracy.

Answer 105

At common law, no overt act was required. Today, most jurisdictions require it. Virtually any act can be an overt act. even a merely preparatory act will suffice. The overt act can be committed by any member of the conspiracy. You could have specific overt act statute for a specific offence and a general overt act statute for other crime. One may need overt act and the other one doesn't.

Answer 106

Not a defense under Common law under MPC, some jurisdiction allow renunciation if the person take reasonable steps to thwart the conspiracy. - could be change of heart or substantial step to not do the crime.

Answer 107

In order to renounce the conspiracy, one must acknowledged that he was in the conspiracy. even though he is one who told the school about the potential danger.

Answer 108

making someone criminally responsible for the crimes of someone else by assisting/participating in crime

Answer 109

Principles and Accessories (Accomplice)

Answer 110

Perpetrators that committed the crime

Answer 111

Perpetrators that assisted. The accomplices are treated as principals.

Answer 112

Assistance. Even trivial assistance are sufficient for accomplice liability.

Answer 113

No. Mere bystander liability is not enough. You must have more than that. You must have something affirmative aid or encouragement.

Answer 114

VT didn't say a word during his friends' theft action. VT is said not criminally liable or no accomplice liability because passive behaviour is not affirmative encouragement. no actus reus to constitute accomplice.

Answer 115

Yes. the assistance does not require any causal connection. So even if there is assistance that is trivial, it doesn't have to cause the commission of the crime.

Answer 116

Specific Intent or Purpose approach (Common Law): an intent to aid. "that the person must in some sort associate himself with the venture and participate in it as something he wishes to bring about. And seek by his action to make it succeed." or Knowledge approach (MPC): The rule is that you would have to act with the specific intent to promote or facilitate the completion of the target crime. But if you're in a knowledge jurisdiction, then there's really two theories of knowledge that could apply. 1) that the aider knows that his aid will promote or facilitate the offense. 2) that we simply infer a specific intent from his knowledge. infer purpose from that knowledge. ex. he intends to aid the principal and knows that a gun will be used, and knows it at a time that he can choose to do something about it .Then he's a accomplice.

Answer 117

The accomplice is guilty not only of the target crime, but of any other crime committed by the principal that is the natural and probable consequence of the target crime that the accomplice aided. You don't need to have any specific intent to aid the subsequent crime. ex. Let's let's say, Me and a couple other guys we're gonna go rob a drug deal. Right. And so I provide assistance, no question, I provide assistance you know, I provide a you know, the bag or something like that. Or I serve as the getaway driver, right, that I agree to split the proceeds or something. All right. So we get to the drug dealers house. And then one of my cohorts, right, who was going to perpetrate the robbery goes in perpetrates the robbery and kills the drug dealer. Right. So murderers, the drug dealer. I wasn't in on that. Right. I had no intent with respect to the killing of the drug dealer. Under the natural and probable consequences doctrine, though, I am probably still guilty of the killing. So now I'm on the hook, not just for the robbery, but I'm also on the hook for the murder as well. Reason is that a murder was committed and was a natural and probable consequence. A murder is a forseeable event to a robbery event.

Answer 118

If you use an innocent person to essentially commit the criminal act for you, even though that person doesn't know that they're doing so. The Supreme Court said that if you effect a criminal act through an innocent or unwitting agent, then you are a principal. In fact, at the time a principal in the first degree who was the unwitting agent here it was the police the police were the unwitting agents.

Answer 119

If the principal is acquitted, it doesn't mean the accomplice will also get acquitted. The general approach is to allow accomplices to be prosecuted, even if the principal is acquitted. The aider and abetter liability does not depend upon principle liability. Only one exception: if the principal is acquitted based on justification. - negate the idea that a crime was ever committed because the act was justified. *some jurisdiction allows withdrawal. However, withdrawal is a high bar and hard to prove. By simply walk away doesn't mean your complicity ended. You need to let principals know that you're out of the thing.

Answer 120

Conspiracy can be both an offense and a way of making someone guilty of other substantive crimes. 1. First establish that the defendant was part of a conspiracy. 2. You must establish the nature and extent of the conspiracy to which the defendant was a party. 3. You must determine whether the defendant can be guilty of other crimes committed.

Answer 121

A conspirator is guilty not only of conspiracy, but of any substantive crime committed by any other member of the conspiracy that is within the scope of the conspiracy or is reasonably foreseeable, even if not part of agreement. ex. A and B agree to rob a bank. A will do the robbery, B will drive the getaway car. To effectuate the robbery, B steals a car and uses it for the bank job. A does not know the car is stolen. A robs the bank and they flee in the stolen car. A is guilty of Conspiracy, bank robbery, car theft. B is guilty of conspiracy, bank robbery, car theft. Pinkerton applies when the substantive crime is forseeable. Pinkerton doctrine is established to catch big boss. if everybody knows that they're part of the same conspiracy, And if everybody knows that you know drug trafficking and extortion and even murder are contemplated by their conspiratorial arrangement, then that means anytime, any one of them commits any of those offenses, they're on the hook for it.

Answer 122

True. let's say I want to rob a bank, or somebody else wants to rob the bank. somebody else wants to rob a bank. I don't know this person. never met this person and don't have any agreement with them. Right, I'm in the bank, and I'm just, you know I'm doing my banking business whatever, you know, sitting in a chair sitting at a table whatever filling out some

Answer 123

You have to have a conspiracy. You have a subsequent crime, beyond the conspiracy. Just remember, for Pinkerton liability, you have to have a conspiracy. You have a subsequent crime beyond the conspiracy And then that subsequent crime has to be either within the scope of the conspiracy or reasonably foreseeable.

Answer 124

To withdraw, you must take some steps to disavow or defeat the purposes of the conspiracy. Merely ceasing participation is not enough. Court said, Danino walked away from a ticking bomb.

Answer 125

Middleman connected with the supplier and distributer. The court deemed this as a single big chain conspiracy.

Answer 126

Even if the prosecutor has prove beyond a reasonable doubts of the offence. Ex. Justification and Excuses.

Answer 127

A justification relates to conduct that otherwise would be criminal, but is not, because it is not regarded as worthy of moral condemnation. In fact, the conduct is justified precisely because it is not morally balmeworthy and is instead socially desirable. In certain situations, we want the actor to do act that he or she did. With justifications, we focus on the action.

Answer 128

An excuse relates to conduct that would otherwise be criminal, but is not, because of the lack of morally balmewothiness on the part of the actor. Because of some condition, the actor should not be deemed culpable. But the act was still wrongful, not socially desireable. With excuses, we focus on the actor.

Answer 129

A non-aggressor will be justified, and not be held criminally responsible, if she reasonably believed that force was necessary to protect herself from imminent force by another person. (Non-deadly self defense) A non-aggressor will be justified, and not be held criminally responsible, if she reasonably believed that DEADLY FORCE was necessary to protect herself from imminent DEADLY FORCE by another person. - requirements: 1. imminent threat 2. necessity 3. reasonable belief in the imminence and the necessity 4. Proportionality.

Answer 130

The threat must be present or ongoing; the defender's response therefore cannot be backward-looking or retrospective. (Not harm in the past) State v. Norman (Living under constant threats) Imminent harm has to be "you're about to suffer harm".

Answer 131

The two have to be close in time. In contrast, immediate necessity asked about the temporal relationship between the actors defensive force and his last opportunity to avert the threat. In other words, what matters is whether the necessary the weather it was necessary to use defensive force At that moment to stop the threat. In most cases, the two standards yield identical results but sometimes they diverge, especially in cases of slowly developing threads, and later in that note on page 704 You see the reference to battered woman syndrome. In the New Jersey case right state versus Mahoney. Perhaps, immediate necessity may help Norman's case.

Answer 132

the defender's use of force must be necessary. No necessity no defense. Initial aggressor cannot claim self-defense because there is no necessity. At common law, if the defender could safely retreat, she was not priviledged to use force in self-defense. There is a duty to retreat. If you can retreat, you don't get necessity. We don't want people killing other people, unless it is absolutely necessary to do so. A defensive killing is unnecessary if the occasion for it could be averted.

Answer 133

Peterson had a wrecked car behind his house. This guy Keet and two friends drove there to steal his windshield wipers of all things. Peterson saw key came outside to tell Keith to stop. They have an argument Peterson goes into his house he gets a gun and he comes back out. Now Kate had gone to his own car he was getting ready to leave. Peterson then tells him if you move I'll shoot. And he said if you come in here I'll kill you. Kate of course does exactly what you would imagine somebody under those circumstances would do. I being sarcastic Of course. He begins walking toward Peterson right after grabbing a wrench, right and sort of brandishing it in front of Peterson Peterson warns key again and then he shoots him in the face and kills him. Peterson claims he's entitled to a different instruction on self defense than he actually received the trial court had instructed the jury that an initial aggressor ordinarily cannot claim self defense. The traditional rule is you can't claim self defense. If you are the one that generates the necessity. Peterson claim the castle doctrine that he doesn't need to retreat. The court said you don't need to retreat but it doesn't apply when you're the initial aggressor.

Answer 134

Castle Doctrine does NOT apply to the open curtilage surrounding a home. (immediate surrounding the home) Therefore, riddle still needs to retreat to the home, unless you're in the home and not the initial aggressor.

Answer 135

Yes. retreat is never required even under the strict common law. retreat is never required if it would imperil the defender, your place of safety must be a place of complete safety. In reality, retreat is usually not consider.

Answer 136

Yes. Most jurisdictions have abolished the retreat rule in self-defense.

Answer 137

Many states today have this rule. This is simply a condification of the modern trend toward abolishing the retreat. You have a right to stand your ground, as long as you have a legal right to be there. You may stand your ground and use defensive force, not offensive force defensive force.

Answer 138

Yes. The deadly force user turn to initial agressor and the initial agreessor now turns to defender.

Answer 139

Self-defense requires a sincere and reasonable belief by the defender that he or she faces imminent threat that requires the use of force. Subjective standard? Objective Standard? or Hybrid? its objective it's a reasonable person, but the reasonable person in the defendants situation.

Answer 140

f you engage in defensive force under an unreasonable belief, he result will be manslaughter rather than murder. Subjective belief but not objectively reasonable. You get manslaughter. It is partial defense that mitigate to manslaughter. But in those jurisdictions that don't recognize imperfect self-defense, the crime becomes murder.

Answer 141

A principle of justification. - Natural forces compel a person to chose between the lesser of evils so necessary is often referred to as the choice of evils defects. this is the sort of the core of necessity You're breaking the law But you are breaking the law. Because if you don't break the law, the harm that is about to be follow you will be worse than the evil produced by breaking the law. So that the danger that you're trying to avoid must be imminent or immediate. There must be no other reasonable lawful alternative available to the actor. The actor must reasonably believe that breaking the law will avoid the impending harm. Requirement: 1. the violation of law must produce a lesser evil than the evil posed by the threat the actor faces; 2. the danger to be avoided must be imminent or immediate; 3. the actor cannot be responsible for creating the necessity; 4. there must be no other reasonable, lawful alternative available to the actor; 5. the actor must reasonably believe that breaking the law will avoid the impending harm; 6. the actor's criminality must cease after the threat has been evaded; 7. the defense is not permitted if it would defeat a legislative purpose to exclude the defense.

Answer 142

Not a valid defense because it is a violation of some other law as a way of or in the course of protesting something else.

Answer 143

Civil disobedience is where a person knows they're breaking the law. But they claimed they had to break the law in order to achieve certain political objectives. Typically this arises in the context of protesters. Violating the law where it is the subject of the protest.

Answer 144

It is a valid defense. It arises when a person commits a crime because they have been threatened or coerced into doing so by another person, not by natural forces, but by some other person. So person comes up to you and says, you know, I need you to rob this bank for me. And if you don't rob the bank, I'm going to kill you or I'm going to harm your family. And then you rob the bank. That's duress. a person can claim duress if that person or a third party such as a close family member, faced an imminent threat from which there was no reasonable means of escape. imminent threat from which there is no reasonable means of escape. actor is not blameworthy in creating the circumstances that led to the threat. So duress involves human forces acting upon the defendant. Necessity typically involves natural forces. Necessity could involve a kind of a less serious threat, though simply one that is presenting an evil greater than the law breaking. But duress involves serious threats. Right? Those that would be serious enough or so serious. that a reasonable person would be unable to resist the threat. In the case, as you can see you know, how duress plays out where you have a sufficiently severe threat against the person that the person had to break the law that really didn't have a choice. Whatever choice they had was vitiated or eliminated by the severity of the nature of the threat against them. complying with the law under those circumstances, in other words, not giving into the threat would potentially exact a cost that would be too great for the actor to bear. So we don't expect the actor to bear that cost. We excuse them from their criminality even though it was wrong. Threat The threat needs to be so severe that a person of reasonable firmness would be unable to resist it. Escape Is the person able to reasonably escape?

Answer 145

Voluntary Intoxication - usually not a defense under common law but has evolved.This is because VI actually enhances rather than diminishes the person's culpability. We don't want to create a criminal law which someone who wants to commit a crime could get away with it by getting drunk. The only time VI is useful is to successfully negate the specific intent of an offence. One can say that he is so intoxicated that he couldn't form a specific intent to perform an offence. This is not a defense and more of a failure of proof. Involuntary Intoxication

Answer 146

This is where a person becomes intoxicated, either by coercion, or mistake, or where the actor has an unusual reaction maybe to some kind of prescribed medication. Or is not aware that he is susceptible to becoming grossly intoxicated by like a small amount of an intoxicant. Has to be ingestion of substance. cannot be lack of water and food or something like that. However, hypoglycemia is allowed. Still need to show that the intoxication is so severe that negate your ability to form that intent.

Answer 147

not the same as competence to be tried. Competency involves the procedural mechanisms for determining whether a person who presently suffers from insanity it looks for something different. Mental illness is not the same as insanity. You can be mentally ill and not insane. An affirmative defense, so the government can require the defendant to prove the insanity by preponderance of the evidence. The big fight is how is it defined.

Answer 148

Under this test, The defendant at the time of the offense, is laboring under a mental disease or defect, such that she did not know the nature and quality of her actions. That is she lacks cognitive capacity. She thinks she's doing one thing, but when in reality she's doing another. So she did not know the nature and quality of our actions or she did not know the difference between right and wrong. Two Prongs: She did not know the nature and quality of her actions (Mental Incapacity); or (complete incapacitation) ex. she thinks she's doing one thing, but when in reality she's doing another. (Complete Incapacitation) she did not know the difference between right and wrong. (Moral Incapacity)

Answer 149

Adds a volitional prong to the M'naghten test. Establishes insanity if the defendant meets M'naghten or if she suffers from an irresistible impulse that makes her unable to control her behavior. Supplements M'Naghten. (Not popular test) A defendant may know that his or her actions were wrong, but committed them because of an "irresistible impulse". The focus is on volition. Even if his or her mental illness meant that, although recognizing the wrongness of the offense, he or she was compelled to commit the offense anyway. Appreciate v. Know Know is the surface level knowledge whereas appreciate is of a deeper understanding. One can know the difference between right and wrong but didn't appreciate it.

Answer 150

If at the time of the offense, as a result of mental disease or defect, defendant lacks substantial capacity to either appreciate the criminality of her conduct or conform her conduct to the requirements of the law. Substantial capacity differs from M'Naghten and irresistible impulse, which require complete incapacitation.

Answer 151

Deific Decree Doctrine (Insanity)

Answer 152

Diminished Capacity is a kind of alternative to insanity, argued by those who fail to meet the insanity test. Serves as failure of proof. If the defendant's mental capacity is such that she could not form the requisite mens rea, then the offense is downgraded. Cannot argue insanity because it didn't meet insanity test. But can still argue for diminished capacity that shows the Offender didn't meet the intent component of the offence.

Answer 153

M'Naghten test and Irrisistible Impulse Test require complete incapacitation of the person, the MPC test only requires a substantial incapacity.

US Crim 2023 Flashcards

(200 cards)