Crim Flashcards
What is a
Crime
formula
Actus Reus + Mens Rea + Causation* + Concurrence
* Some crimes dont require causation
If some part of the equation is not met, then the crime can not be met
What is
Concurrence
in crime
Actus rea and mens rea happening at the same time
Basic elements of Most crimes
Actus rea (act req)
Mens Rea
Causation
Concurrence
What is Mens Rea?
Act requirements
Must be Voluntary
No Punishement for failure to act
Results in some kind of social harm
Mens Rea territory
What is involuntary (MPC)
Reflex or convulsion
bodily movements while asleep or unconscious
conduct during hypnosis
Actus rea
Exceptions for failure to act?
Ommissions
Special relationships (parent)
Contracts (hired to take care of elderly)
Statutory duty (taxes)
Creation of the risk ()
voluntary assumption ()
legal duty to act
What is Robinson v. California Rule?
Status crimes are unconstitutional
Cannot penalize someone for being addicted to drugs, criminalizes something that is beyond a person’s control not an actual act
What is Mens Rea?
Mental State requirements Generally
Prohibited mental state
Guilty mind
Mens Rea definitions
Purposely
consciously desire a particular result
Mens Rea Definitions
Knowingly
Aware that a result is practically certain to follow from your conduct, regardless of desire
Mens Rea Definitions
Recklessly
conscious disregard of substantial and unjustifiable risk
Default under the MPC when no mental state is listed
NOT TRUE FOR CL
Mens Rea Definitions
Negligently
not aware but should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk
Ignorance of a risk
MPC Diminishing levels Pyramid
Purposely
Knowngly
Recklessly
Negligently
Bottom
Strict Liability
Regulatory offenses/public welfare offensives, where no mental state needs to be proven
ex. possession crimes or speeding
Causation
Linkes the d’s action with the social harm
Concurrence
Act and mental state happens art the same time
Intent
Specific intent
Pursue a further goal
Having a conscious goal of causing social harm set forth in the definition of the offenses
Only in Common Law - Purposely
General Intent
Just doing the crime
Knowingly, Recklessly, Negligently
Only in Common Law
Mistake of Fact - General Intent
Mistake must be Honest and Reasonable
Reasonable: a reasonable person would have realized the mistake (objective)
Honest: this person truly believes this scenario to be true (subjunctive)
Exception
No defense even if the facts had been as the actor believed them to be, the conduct would still be illegal or immoral
Mistake of Fact - Specific Intent
Honest Mistake
Exception
No defense even if the facts had been as the actor believed them to be, the conduct would still be illegal or immoral
Mistake of Fact MPC
To be defense
The mistake negates the mens rea; or
The legislature specifically says that ignorance or mistake is a defense then it is
Exception:
Yes, the defense is not available if the defendant’s conduct would have constituted another lesser crime
Exception to the exception
If Δ’s conduct would be illegal under the facts as he believed them to be, then Δ will be held liable for the charged offense
Ex. Bell, soliciting underage prostitution, liable, cant argue he was honst, reasonably mistaken about age
ex. recklessness negates the mens rea
NO GI/SI distinction
No reasonableness req
Prohibited Objects General Intent
Having actual physical control over the thing
Being aware of control long enough to enable termination of possession
Knowledge depends on the context
Larceny
Taking/carrying away the personal property of another
From the possession of another
With the Intent to deprive the owner of property
Specific intent
Burglary
Breaking; entry by fraud or moving anything blocking door, constructive breaking (fraud or lying)
Entering; any part enters structure, insert tool to gain entry
Dwelling,
With the intent to commit a felony (felounious intent, purposely)
Specific intent
Robbery
Lacerny plus
Force or putting Fear
(as a means of effectuating and carrying away the property of another from the person’s presence)
Specific intent
1st degree murder
1.Premeditation and deliberation, or
2.Some conduct stated in the Statute like lying in wait, poison, torture; or
3.Felony murder w/ burglary, arson, rape, robbery, or kidnapping as the underlying felony (1st degree felony murder
Common law
Premeditation
First degree murder
quantity (thinking about this for a while)
Deliberate
1st degree murder
Quality of thought (cool head)
2nd degree murder
Depraved heart killing (killing w/ extreme recklessness)
Ex. Malone, a teenager, shoots friends during Russian Roulette
Felony murder w/ a listed or inherently dangerous felony that is not BARRK (Felony murder in the 2nd degree)
Common Law
Default for intentional killing
Voluntary Manslaughter
Intentional killing that would normally qualify as second-degree murder but is reduced to lesser crime of VM through the application of a partial defense
like provocation(heat of passion)
Common Law
Involuntary Manslaughter
Brough the death of another human being through criminal negligence or recklessness
Sometimes gross negligence, sometimes ordinary recklessness
Gross- big deviation from what reasonable people would be aware of
Limitation for 2nd felony murder
Inherently dangerous felony limitation
Concrete- Did the way the elements were satisfied in this particular case create a substantial risk of death/serious bodily injury
Ex. turkey case
Abstract- In general, does satisfying the elements of this crime create a substantial risk of death/serious bodily injury? “Is the felony itself”
Ex. meth case
Res Gestae (start to end req)
Causation+
Parts
*Temporal and geographical proximity between the felony and the homicide
*There must be a causal link between the felonious acts and the homicide
a) The death was foreseeable (like proximate cause)
b) The death was the result of acts in furtherance of the felony (like actual cause)
*Felony needs to cause the death essentially
part of felony murder limitations
Murder MPC
A killing was done either w/ purposely, knowingly, or extreme recklessness
Extreme recklessness- extreme indifference to the value of human life (similar to a depraved heart)
§ 210.2(1)(b)
“Under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life”
Extreme recklessness- conscious disregard of a substantial and very unjustifiable risk
ex.Malone
Provocation
Common Law
- D was actually provoked (subjective)
- The reasonable person in D’s shoes would have been provoked (legally adequate provocation) (objective)
- D didn’t have sufficient time to cool off (subjective), and
- The reasonable person in D’s shoes wouldn’t have cooled off (objective)
Ex. Barry
Mere words are not enough to suffice adequate provocation
Exception
a wife confesses to adultery or tells her husband he is sexually unsatisfying
CL
Manslaughter MPC
(1) Killing committed recklessly (but without circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life), and/or
(2) when a killing that would otherwise be murder “is committed under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance for which there is reasonable explanation or excuse
Provocation
MPC
Under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance for which there is reasonable explanation or excuse. The reasonableness of such explanation or excuse shall be determined from the viewpoint of a person in the actor’s situation under the circumstances as he believes them to be.”
Means
There is a reasonable explanation, but the reasonableness is based on what a person would have done based on the circumstances and the defendant’s perception
Criminal Negligent Homicide CL
Gross negligence/criminal negligence
the failure to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care a reasonable person would observe in the situation.
higher than ordinary tort negligence
Intent Complicity
Not a crime but being complicit in some crime
Dual intent
1) intent to assist, and
2) have the mental state required for the commission of the target offense
ex. Foster
prosecution has to prove that an accomplice has a dual intent
Complicity CL
Principal in the first degree (P1)
* The person who actually commits the crime or uses an innocent instrumentality to do so
* Accomplices
* Principal in the second degree (P2) - The person who assists P1 and is present at the scene of the crime (charged with crime like P1)
* Accessory before the fact (AB) -The person who assists P1 but is not present at the scene ofthe crime (charged with crime like P1)
* Accessory after the fact (AA) - The person who helps P1 avoid arrest, trial or conviction— and also isn’t present (Charged with lesser serious seperate crime than P1)
Why did it matter whether one was a principal or an accessory?
Complicity CL
- If the prosecutor incorrectly identified the defendant as a principal
when he was actually an accessory, or vice versa, the indictment
would have to be dismissed - An accessory could not be tried and convicted before the principal in
the first degree - An accessory could only be prosecuted in the jurisdiction where his
acts of assistance occurred whereas principals were prosecuted
where the crime occurred
What is an “innocent instrumentality”?
MPC
a person who does not physically commit the actus reus can nevertheless be held responsible for the crime, not as an accomplice but as the principle
ex. stealling a car and convincing a locksmith that you locked yourself out of the car, You have the mental state for larceny, the locksmith is an innocent instrumentality
Generally define
Conspiracy
Common Law
An Agreement to unlawful act
Can be convicted of both conspiracy and taget offense
Elements
Conspiracy
Common law
Agreement (can be infered from circumstances, does not need to be expressed or in writting)
Overt act in the furtherance (no matter how trivial, does not need to be substancial)
The act of any one co-conspirator in furtherance of the
agreement is sufficient to prosecute all the co-conspirators, even
those who joined the agreement after the overt act was
performed
Conspiracy
Pinkerton Liability
Common law
Coconspirators are liable for unintended but reasonably foreseeable crimes that are a natural consequence of the conspiracy
Objective, what most people would foresee
ex. death during a robbery forseeable
rape during robbery not generally foreseeable
Defense to Conspiracy
Common law
Abandonment
Must be
Completely and voluntarily renounces his criminal purpose, and
* Actually thwarts the conspiracy
Generally
Conspiracy
MPC
Unilateral approach- only 1 person needs to think theyre agreeing w/ another
Conspiracy and target conspired for offense merge, you can only be convicted of one of them NOT both
No pinkerton liability
Conspiracy abandoment
MPC
You can abandon just like at common law but also you can either
* Inform co-conspirators that you’re out, stop
criminal activity, or
* Inform police about conspiracy, stop criminal
activity
* If you do either of those things, you don’t
need to actually thwart
Mental State
Attempts
Common Law
attempt is always a “specific intent” crime
You cannot be convicted of an attempt if you act recklessly or negligently with respect to prohibited conduct or
a prohibited result—there is no attempted reckless homicide, for instance
Mental states
Attempt
MPC
Two requirements
* (1) The mental state otherwise necessary for the completed crime; and (conscious, voluntary)
* (2) Some kind of purposeful (or knowing, in the case of result crimes) act or omission that would either
constitute the completed crime, or a substantial step “in a course of conduct planned to culminate in his
commission of the crime
attempt CL
Abandonment
Not a thing
either you went beyond mere preparation or you didnt
attempts
Examples of requiring proof that the
defendant had purpose to commit target offense
* Even if the target offense does not require purpose, an
attempt to commit that offense does
Intended to kill
* Intended grievous bodily injury
* Acted with gross recklessness and an extreme
indifference to human life, or
* Intended to commit a qualifying felony during the
commission or attempted commission of which a
death occurred
attempted murder requires proof of purpose to kill, nothing short of purpose to will suffice to establish mens rea for attempted murder
Attempt MPC
Abandonment
affirmative defense
abandoned his effort to commit the crime or otherwise prevented its commission,
Must be complete and voluntary renunciation of his criminal purpose
* The establishment of such defense does not, however, affect the liability of an accomplice who did not join in
such abandonment or prevention
Can you be guilty of attempted felony murder?
No
ex.Bernick is robbing a bank and in the process, McConkie fires a gun, wounding Jones. If Jones dies, Bernick could be found guilty of FM.
* If Jones lives, can Bernick be found guilty of attempted felony murder?
No – he didn’t have the purpose of killing
* Murder is a result crime, so state must prove D intended to kill the victim
Attempt
Act requirement
CL
Coming dangerously close to completion of the social harm that constitutes the crime is attempt
* Anything prior to that on the planning continuum is mere “preparation” and not criminal
ex. rizzo
Attempt
Act requirement
MPC
Any act that constitutes a “substantial step” toward commission of the crime and that strongly corroborates the
actor’s mens rea is an attempt.
* MUCH easier to satisfy than common-law requirement
MPC
Attemps examples of act req.
(a) lying in wait, searching for or following the contemplated victim of the crime;
* (b) enticing or seeking to entice the contemplated victim of the crime to go to the place contemplated for its commission;
* (c) reconnoitering the place contemplated for the commission of the crime;
* (d) unlawful entry of a structure, vehicle or enclosure in which it is contemplated that the crime will be
committed;
* (e) possession of materials to be employed in the commission of the crime, which are specially designed for such unlawful use or which can serve no lawful purpose of the actor under the circumstances;
* (f) possession, collection or fabrication of materials to be employed in the commission of the crime, at or near
the place contemplated for its commission, where such possession, collection or fabrication serves no lawful
purpose of the actor under the circumstances;
* (g) soliciting an innocent agent to engage in conduct constituting an element of the crime
Defenses
Self defense
Need to be honest and reasonable belief in
*imminence (threat of force is really close)
*necessity (force is proportionate to the thresat)
*proportionality (force is proportionate to the threat)
Cant have started it
A reasonable person is who acts in self-defense has not only the physical characteristics but also the experiences, beliefs, and the memory of the defendant.
both cl and mpc
Defenses
Defense of others
The defendant must honestly and reasonably believe that force used was necessary to protect a third person from an imminent unlawful attack
the threat must be imminent, force is necessary to dispel threat, and force must be proportionate
Defenses
Duress
Immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury
Well-grounded fear that this threat will actually be carried out
No reasonable opportunity to escape the threatened harm
Conspiracy
Supplier of Goods
- Know its illegal
- have the purpose of futhering the use
Jury can infer purpose if
a. Seller has acquired a stake in the venture
b. There is no legitimate use for the goods or services
c. When the volume of th ebusiness w/ the buyer is disproportionate to any legitimate demand
Purposely
MPC def
Consciously desire a particular result
Knowingly
MPC
Aware that a result is practically certain to follow from your conduct
regardless of desire
Recklessly
MPC
Conscious disregard of substantial and unjustifiable risk
(know and disregard)
negligently
MPC
Not aware but shoukd be of a substantial and unjustifiable risk
(ignorance of risk)
Mistake of Fact
MPC
Honest
must negate the Mens rea
Defense: Not available if conduct would have constituted a lesser crime unless conduct is illegal, charge lesser crime
Mistake of fact
Common law
General Intent: Honest and reasonable
Specific intent: Honest mistake
Legal wrong doctrine, if fact had been as the actor believed them to be, conduct was still illegal or immoral
Specific (purpose)
General (knowledge, reckless, negligent)
