Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Criminal Law- Nickel, Summer 2013 > Basic Principles > Flashcards

Basic Principles Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
Civil Procedure 1L flashcards MBE flashcards MPRE flashcards
1
Q

Retribuative Theory of Punishment (Retribution)

A
  • theory is that people get what they deserve
  • humans possess free will and have capacity to choose to do right or wrong
  • person who does something wrong owes something to society
  • punishment is a morally just act since it brings the criminal back into moral equilibrium with society
  • LOOKS BACKWARDS at what D has done
  • if person has done something wrong, they should get what they deserve
  • will only punish wrongdoer to extent of the wrongdoing
    • looks at harm caused
    • looks at moral blameworthiness
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Utilitarian Theory of Punishment

A
  • starts from proposition that all pain is bad
  • punishment is bad because it inflicts pain; but crime inflicts pain too
  • society should punish by imposing pain IF imposition of punishment will reduce future crime (future pain) of a greater degree that society is now inflicting
    *
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

5 Elements of a Crime

A
  1. Conduct by D that includes a voluntary act (or ommission to act when had a duty to act)
  2. Voluntary act must cause social harm
  3. Mens Rea- morally culpable state of mind
  4. Actual Cause
  5. Proximate Cause

We only punish people for a voluntary act, that actually and proximately causes social harm. This volunary act must be done by action by the defendant, with a morally culpable state of mind.

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

Actus Reus- Volunary Act

A
  • No person may be convicted unless the crime includes a voluntary act (or failure to act).
  • Common law- a willed muscular contraction
  • D’s conduct must only include a voluntary act (not every act need be voluntary)
  • MPC-
    • act is a bodily movement, whether voluntary or involuntary
    • defines what is not a voluntary act
      • reflexes
      • convulsions
      • conduct during unconsciousness, sleep, or due to hypnosis
      • generally any conduct that is not a product of the effort or determination of the actor, either conscious or habitual.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Actus Reus- 5 Ommission to Act Exceptions

serves as a substitute for voluntary act requirement

if met, this is just the first step, go on to see other factors

A
  1. Statuatory Duty- some statute that punishes someone for failing to act (file taxes, parents must provide food/shelter for children, etc.)
  2. Common Law Status Relationship- Even in absence of statute, the common law recognizes status relationships where one person owes a duty to another. (Parent/child, husband/wife, employer/employee, etc.)
  3. Contractual duty to aid- may be written/oral, expressed/implied (i.e. babysitter implied contract for duty to aid children)
  4. Actor creates a risk of harm to victim, then fails to do something to diminish that risk (i.e. driving an struck child who jumped in front of car- must seek aid for child)
  5. D’s acts when there is no duty, but after starting to act, stops acting. This creates a duty to continue to act if stopping makes matters worse for victim than if you hadn’t started acting in the first place.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Actus Reus- Social Harm

A
  • harm to the whole community (not just to immediate victim)
  • to determine social harm, look at external acts of statute
  • when social harm occurrs because of a voluntary act of D, we can then say that the actus reus of the crime has been met.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Actus Reus- Elements

A
  1. voluntary act (or ommission when there is a duty to act),
  2. that causes
  3. social harm
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Mens Rea- general ideas

A
  • latin for guilty mind
  • mental state of actor when committing the actus reus
  • crimes usually contain a mens rea element
  • ambiguous term, generally used in two ways
    • Culpability type- guilty mind (morally blameworthy state of mind)
    • Elemental type- particular wrongful state of mind found in definition of crime (burglary…with inetnt to commit felony inside- this is particuarl mens rea)
  • some crimes have a specific mens rea required (elemental type); other crimes require only a general mens rea (culpability type/guilty mind)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Strict Liability Crimes- general

A
  • crime without need of a mens rea-guilty state of mind
  • certain kinds of conduct can be not morally wrongful, but dangerous to people
  • public welfare offenses
    • involve conduct not morally wrongful- (malum prohibitum- wrong because it is prohibited; wrong only because we’ve made it a crime as apposed to malum in se- wrong in themselves)
    • generally involve very little punishment (very little prison, if any, and low fines)
    • usually does not stigmatize harmdoer
  • many public welfare offenses do not require a mens rea
  • general rule is that all crimes have a mens rea
    • courts will generally infer a mens rea into any crime, even if crime has no mens rea element
    • if it is clear on the part of the legislature that they did not intend a mens rea, then the court will allow a crime without a mens rea
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

MPC Mens Rea Terms

A
  • Purposfully- if a person has a conscious objective to cause a particular result
  • Knowingly- a person is aware that the result in question is virtually certain to occur
  • Recklessly- if a person consciously1 (is aware) takes a substantial and unjustifiable risk2 of causing the particular harm3
  • Negligently- (criminal negligence) if a person should have been aware they are taking a substantial and unjustifiable risk, but wasn’t aware

Intentional/Intent is a common law concept. Purposfully or Knowingly meets common law *intentionally. *

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

Specific Intent Crimes

A
  • Specific Intent crimes by definition require proof of some particular mens rea that goes beyond the social harm outlined in the crime
  • Examples of three types:
  • intent to commit some act, over and above the actus reus of the crime- i.e. burglary- breaking and entering the dwelling house of another, at night with intent to commit a felony inside (this intention is a specific intention)
  • specific motive for committing the actus reus of a crime- if a crime requires a specific motive- larceny- a person wrongfully takes and carries away the personal property of another within intent to permanantly deprive person of the property’
  • knowledge/actual awareness of some circumstance that is found in the definition of the crime- statute by definition requires actual knowlege by the actor of some very specific circumstance- recieving stolen property- requires knowledge it was stolen
  • General Intent crimes
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

General Intent Crimes

A
  • If a crime does not have any of the three examples of specific intent mens rea, then it is a general intent crime.
    • Example- rape- sexual intercourse, by a man, with a woman, not his wife, without her consent.
    • no mention of mens rea (but courts presume there is one)
    • this is a general intent crime- only needs a morally blameworthy state of mind
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Voluntary Act

A
  • A willed muscular contraction
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Mens Rea- MPC Intent- ‘Purposefully’ Definition

A
  • social harm is actor’s conscious object or desire
  • actor is aware of attendant circumstances or hopes they exist
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Mens Rea- MPC Intent- ‘Knowingly’ Definition

A
  • actor is aware of attendant circumstances (material fact) or nature of conduct
  • knows with virtual certainty that conduct will cause social harm
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Mens Rea- MPC Intent- ‘Recklessly’ Definition

A

if a person conciously1 takes a substantial and unjustifiable risk2 of causing the particular harm that occurred3.

an unjustifiable risk is one that a reasonble person would not have taken that risk under the circumstances.

courts examine circumstances to balance gravity and probability of harm vs. reason why actor took the risk- jury issue- to determine reasonableness.

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

Mens Rea- MPC Intent- ‘Negligently’ Definition

A

Most often termed ‘criminal negligence’ to differentiate from tort negligence.

Criminal Negligence and Recklessness both involve substantial, unjustifiable risk taking.

Criminal Negligence cases differ from ‘recklessness’ cases because in negligence cases the person should have been aware of risk, but wasn’t aware.

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

Mens Rea- Common Law Intent

A
  • intentionally-
    • purposfully/ concious object or desire
    • knowingly- know with virtual/practical certainty that result will occur
  • willfully- word of many meanings/used sometimes for inentional
    • act done with bad purpose/evil motive
    • intentional violation of known legal duty
  • negligently / recklessly-
    • gross deviation from standard of care that a reasonable person in actor’s situation would take
    • recklessness difference is that the actor knew of the risk
    • negligence difference is the actor should have known of the risk, but didn’t
  • malliciously- with mallice
    • intentional or reckless
    • figure out which one ‘malliciously’ means
19
Q

Principle of Legality

A
  • Latin translated- no crime without law, no punishment without law
  • a person may not be convicted or punished unless her conduct was defined as criminal before they acted (usually by statute, but some common law still OK)
  • Three corollaries:
    • criminal statutes should be understandable to reasonable law-abiding persons
    • statutes should not ‘delegate basic policy matters to policemen, judges, and juries for resolution on an ad hoc and subjective basis’
    • judicial interpretation of ambiguous statutes should ‘be biased in favor of the accused’- lenity doctrine
20
Q

Common Law ‘Intent’

A
  • includes those results that are:
    • the conscious object of the actor- what he wants to occur
    • actor knows that the results are virtually certain to occur from his conduct, even if he doesn’t want them to arise
21
Q

Maliciously/Malice

A

Can be:

  • actual intention
    • conscious desire, or
    • knowing with virtual certainty that result will occur
  • Recklessness
    • subjective standard (actors PoV)
    • Forsee the type of harm
22
Q

MPC Default Rule-No Mens Rea

A

If something is done either

  • purposefully
  • knowingly
  • recklessly

and if the mens rea is not otherwise specified in the statute, then the MPC says that any of these three will meet the mens rea.

23
Q

Reckless/Negligence Difference

A

The difference is in knowledge.

  • If a person should have known, but did not, this is negligence
  • If a person knew and did it anyway, this is reckless
24
Q

Felony Murder Rule

A
  • during the commission of a felony, D kills V
  • this allows D to be prosecuted for murder even if it was not done intentionally
25
Q

Willful Blindness

A

Generally exists if:

  • D is aware of a high probability of the existence of a fact in question; and
    • D takes a deliberate action to avoid confirming the fact,
    • or D purposely fails to investigate in order to avoid confirmation of the fact.

negligence is not enough for this standard when ‘knowingly’ is the mens rea

26
Q

Owens v. State- Rule

Circumstantial Evidence

A
  • a conviction upon circumstantial evidence alone is not to be sustained unless the circumstances are inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence.
    • to sustain the conviction- there must be no other reasonable explanation
    • to overturn the conviction- there must be another reasonable explanation
27
Q

Principle of Lenity (Common Law)

A
  • when language of statute is clear and unambiguous, courts must give the statute the plain and definite meaning
  • when language is unclear and ambiguous, the court’s primary function is to ascertain intent of legislature
  • when statute is subject to conflicting interpretations, both of which are reasonable interpretations, it should be interpreted in favor of defendant.
  • only applies as a tiebreaker
  • MPC does not recognize lenity principle.
28
Q

Vague Statutes

A
  • a vague statute violates the due process clause of the 14th Amendment if it is so vague that it leaves the public uncertain as to what conduct is prohibited
  • can invalidate law in either of two ways
    • fails to provide notice that will enable ordinary people to understand what conduct is prohibited
    • if it authorizes or encourages arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement
29
Q

Circumstantial Evidence

A
  • requries from the circumstances the fact finder to make an inference
30
Q

Direct Evidence

A

Evidence from eyewitnesses and people with personal knowledge

31
Q

Criminal Burden of Proof

A
  • Every element must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt
  • Dressler says that beyond a reasonable doubt means that the jury has an “abiding conviction of guilt”
32
Q

Ambiguity under the MPC

A
  • resolved in manner that would further, not frustrate, legistlative policies behind the speicific law in question
  • ambiguity should be resolved in a manner that furthers the general purpose of the provision
33
Q

Actus Reus- Possession

A
  • both an act and an omitssion
  • does not require the D to act, just possess or procure prohibited items
  • must be aware that you are in possession/dominion/control of the item
  • knowing whether it is contraband is the mens rea portion
  • MPC and common law possession are basically the same thing
34
Q

Transferred Intent- Definition

A

The law transfers the actors state of mind regarding the intended victim to the unintended one.

  • looks to the victim, not the crime
  • only transfers from one victim to another, can’t transfer to a different type of social harm
  • can only transfer intent between people, i.e. not from a human being to a fetus
  • intent follows the bullet until it hits something, i.e. if bullet goes through and strikes another, there is no transferred intent.
35
Q

Statutory Clarity- General

A
  • perfect clarity is not required- only reasonable clarity
    • ensure sufficient notice of offenses to citizens
    • avoid arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement
36
Q

Statuatory Clarity- Cases

A

Keeler- ambiguous term in a statute

  • if court enlarges a statue, D isn’t given warning that his conduct is criminal- violates principle of legality

In re Banks- overbroad statute

  • is statute is too ambiguous so that citizens don’t have adequate notice?
  • looks at legislative intent, common law meaning, previous interpretation

Chicago v. Morrales- SCOTUS

  • 14th Amendment issue- due process is violated by lack of fair notice & arbitrary enforcement
  • notice- ordinance vague b/c it doesn’t specify any standard of conduct- thus can’t put public on notice
  • enforcement- ordinance too vague b/c it gives too much discretion to police

Muscarello v. U.S.- SCOTUS

  • term ‘carry’ of firearms
  • Court explained-
    • plain meaning of word- broad definition does not exclude narrow meaning

Flores-Figueroa v. U.S. - SCOTUS

  • if statute isn’t clear, court interprets to best give effect to legislative intent
  • placement of mens rea element within structure of sentence
    • look at grammar- term modifies elements to follow
    • can be confusing as to whether it modifies attendant circumstances
37
Q

Social Harm- Definition

A
  • negation, endangering, or destruction of an individual, group, or state interest which was deemed socially valuable
38
Q

MPC Mens Rea Conditions

A
  • 2.02(3)- if statute silent on mens rea then you can only convict if it was purposeful, knowing, or reckless- no negligence
  • 2.02(4)- presumption is that culpability applies to all elements unless otherwise plainly stated
  • 2.02(5)- downstream substitute- downstream standards can also be established if upstream standard is met
    • i.e. ‘knowingly’ established if ‘purposefully’ is met
    • ‘recklessly’ established if knowingly or purposefully met
39
Q

Strict Liability

A
  • Disfavored at common law and under MPC unless offense is a ‘mere violation’.
  • need some indication of legislative intent in order to dispense with mens rea requirment
  • severity of penalty can indicate whehter offense is subjec to strict liablity or not
  • statutes without common law roots are more likely to impose strict liability
    *
40
Q

Legal/Moral Wrong Doctrine

A
  • Moral wrong doctrine looks at the D’s conduct thorugh the D’s eyes and asks if that conduct, as D saw it was morally wrong. If so, then you can convict
  • Legal wrong doctrine simply replaces ‘moral’ with ‘legal’.
41
Q

Mistake of Fact

A
42
Q

Mistake of Law

A
  • not a defense unless…
  • D reasonably relied on an official interpretation of the law, made by a person or public body with the responsibility for interpretation, administration, or enforcment of the law, and reasonably relied upon interpretation
    • but see Lambert for rare exception
  • D’s lack of knowledge or mistake as to another law may be asserted as a defense if it negates an element of the offense charged
    *
43
Q

Grievious Bodily Injury

A
  • ‘such injury as is grave and not trivial, and gives rise to apprehension of danger to life, health, or limb.’
44
Q

Fair Notice: Lambert Principle

A

When mistake of law is asserted, normally a person must assert that they were relying on an official interpretation of the law. The Lambert principal, however, might allow a person who claims ignorance of a law to win if:

  1. law is an ommission rather than an act
  2. duty to act was imposed on basis of status, rather than action (i.e. moved to LA)
  3. offense was wrong only because it was prohibited by statute (malum prohibitum)

Criminal Law- Nickel, Summer 2013 (10 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions