Crim Flashcards
Describe larceny and robery
Larceny is the wrongful taking and carrying away of another’s tangible personal property without consent and with the intent to permanently deprive.
Only the slightest movement will satisfy the “carrying away” requirement (e.g. pick up and conceal, put back due to tag/alarm).
The intent to permanently deprive must be present at the time of the taking (remember the concurrence requirement!).
Defenses: (1) Mistake of fact: if the defendant believes that the property is her property (even if the belief is unreasonable, i.e. unreasonable mistake of fact), the defendant is not guilty of larceny; (2) Voluntary intoxication: can be a defense to specific intent crimes, but it is not necessarily always a defense. Whether voluntary intoxication is a defense depends on whether the intoxication rendered the defendant incapable of having the state of mind to form the required specific intent.
E.g., In this case, Mel mistakenly thought the passenger’s briefcase was his own. Since Mel thought the briefcase was his, Mel’s mistake of fact negates the intent to permanently deprive element of robbery. Therefore, Mel should be acquitted because his mistake negated the required specific intent.
Robbery is [Larceny: the wrongful taking and carrying away of another’s tangible personal property from another’s person or presence} by force or threat of immediate harm.
Describe the exception to warrant requirements for non-investigatory searches for administrative purposes
The general rule is that inspectors must have a warrant for searches of private residences and commercial buildings.
The probable cause required for administrative search warrants is lower than that required for other search warrants (i.e. a general and neutral enforcement plan).
Nevertheless, searches of businesses within a highly regulated industry are permitted without a warrant.
E.g. In this case, State X enacted a statute “to regulate administratively the conduct of motor vehicle junkyard businesses in order to deter motor vehicle theft and trafficking in stolen motor vehicles or parts thereof.” Since this statute authorizes warrantless searches of businesses within a highly regulated industry, Janet’s motion to suppress the evidence relating to the three automobiles on the ground that the inspection was unconstitutional, should be denied.
Describe forgery
Forgery requires making or altering a writing with apparent legal significance so that it is false and with the specific intent to defraud.
E.g., forged check (vs. pretend letter wouldn’t have legal significance)
Describe false pretenses
False pretenses requires obtaining title to another’s personal property by an intentional false statement of past or present fact with the specific intent to defraud.
E.g. obtained $5,000 (personal property) from a collector by intentionally making the false statement that the letter was from an anonymous foreign collector when she was actually the one who crafted the letter. She acted with the specific intent to defraud collectors by crafting this fake letter so Rachel has committed false pretenses.
Describe right to venire
A defendant’s right to venire is the right to have the jury selected from a representative cross-section of the community. However, this fair cross-section requirement does not apply to individual juries.
Prosecution may exclude prospective juror by exercising peremptory challenges for any reason, except it is unconstitutional for a potential juror to be excluded by the prosecution or defense on the basis of race or gender.
E.g., if the prosecution peremptorily excused all nonwhites from the jury on the basis of race, the court should reverse her conviction.
Due process clause of constitution
The only constitutional issue that can arise under the Due Process Clauses of the US Constitution would be relieving the prosecution of the burden to prove each and every element of a criminal offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
E.g., nothing under the Due Process Clauses of the US Constitution that would prohibit a state from eliminating the insanity defense altogether.
5th Amendment/Miranda Warnings: Discuss spontaneous statements
Under the Fifth Amendment, there is a right against self-incrimination. Miranda warnings must be given to anyone in police custody (i.e. suspect does not reasonably believe that she is free to terminate the encounter with the government) before police interrogation (i.e. any conduct that the police know or should have known was likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect). Miranda warnings inform the defendant of her right to remain silent and her right to an attorney.
The Fifth Amendment right to remain silent and right to counsel only apply in custodial interrogation. As such, the Fifth Amendment does not exclude spontaneous statements made by the defendant. A spontaneous statement is a statement by the suspect that was made not in response to police interrogation.
E.g. In this case, Jason was in police custody when they put handcuffs on Jason. However, before any police interrogation took place, Jason volunteered the statement he now wants to suppress. Had the statement been made in response to a police interrogation before being given Miranda warnings, then the statement may be suppressed. Unfortunately for Jason, his statement was spontaneous and not made in response to police interrogation. Because his statement was volunteered, his motion to suppress should be denied.
Warrant Requirement Exceptions: Lawful Arrest in Suspect’s Home - Protective Sweep
After a search incident to a lawful arrest in a home, police may conduct a protective sweep of the suspect’s home if they have reasonable suspicion (based on specific and articulable facts) to believe others inside the home may pose a danger to them. Such a search is limited to a cursory visual inspection of those places in which a person might be hiding.
E.g. In this case, police lawfully arrested Jason and conducted a search of his person. The police had reasonable suspicion to do a protective sweep of the house because “the police had, over time, accumulated reliable information” that Jason his accomplices “often resorted to violence, and that they kept a small arsenal of weapons in his home.” It was permissible for the officer to conduct a cursory visual inspection of the closet to check for the presence of accomplices, but not to open the box on the closet shelf because it could not have been concealing a person. Therefore, the search exceeded the scope of the protective sweep, and Jason’s motion to suppress the Uzi automatic weapon should be granted.
Describe Accomplice Liability
An accomplice is someone who, with the intent that the crime be committed, aids, counsels, or encourages the principle before or during the commission of the crime. Mere presence alone, however, is never enough for accomplice liability. An accessory after the fact, on the other hand, is someone who shields, shelters or assists another knowing that she has committed a felony in order to help the felon escape arrest, trial or conviction. The felony must be complete at the time aid is rendered for accessory after the fact liability.
What is the felony-murder rule
Under the felony-murder rule, a person can be found guilty of a killing that occurs during the commission of an underlying felony that is inherently dangerous, such as burglary, arson, rape, robbery or kidnapping.
4th Amendment: Discuss rules for searches…
The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.
Unreasonable searches and seizures are those involving state action intruding upon an individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy. The purpose of the Fourth Amendment is to prevent police and law enforcement misconduct.
SEARCH: A search is government intrusion where a person has a reasonable and justifiable expectation of privacy. Ask: state action? standing? warrant? warrant exception?
Automatic/sometimes standing: See other cards.
No standing: [__] is deemed held out to the public, so there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in such an area. Therefore, a [__] was not a search (and no warrant was required).
4th Amendment - Search: No Standing Situations
- …
- Open Fields: An individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the immediate area surrounding their home, but not in the open fields surrounding the home (e.g. hillside 200 yards from farmhouse). Open fields—even if enclosed with a fence—are not protected by the Fourth Amendment.
