Crim Flashcards

Question

Robbery

Answer 1

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

Answer 2

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

Answer 3

quantity (thinking about this for a while)

Answer 4

Quality of thought (cool head)

Answer 5

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 ## Footnote Default for intentional killing

Answer 6

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

Answer 7

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

Answer 8

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

Answer 9

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 ## Footnote part of felony murder limitations

Answer 10

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

Answer 11

1. D was actually provoked (subjective) 2. The reasonable person in D’s shoes would have been provoked (legally adequate provocation) (objective) 3. D didn't have sufficient time to cool off (subjective), and 4. 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

Answer 12

(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

Answer 13

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

Answer 14

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

Answer 15

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 ## Footnote prosecution has to prove that an accomplice has a dual intent

Answer 16

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)

Answer 17

* 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

Answer 18

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 ## Footnote 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

Answer 19

An Agreement to unlawful act Can be convicted of both conspiracy and taget offense

Answer 20

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) ## Footnote 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

Answer 21

Coconspirators are liable for *unintended* *but* *reasonably* *foreseeable* crimes that are a natural consequence of the conspiracy | Objective, what most people would foresee ## Footnote ex. death during a robbery forseeable rape during robbery not generally foreseeable

Answer 22

Abandonment Must be Completely and voluntarily renounces his criminal purpose, and * Actually thwarts the conspiracy

Answer 23

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

Answer 24

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

Answer 25

attempt is always a “specific intent” crime ## Footnote 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

Answer 26

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

Answer 27

Not a thing either you went beyond mere preparation or you didnt

Answer 28

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

Answer 29

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

Answer 30

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

Answer 31

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

Answer 32

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

Answer 33

(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

Answer 34

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

Answer 35

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

Answer 36

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

Answer 37

1. Know its illegal 2. 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

Answer 38

Consciously desire a particular result

Answer 39

Aware that a result is practically certain to follow from your conduct regardless of desire

Answer 40

Conscious disregard of substantial and unjustifiable risk (know and disregard)

Answer 41

Not aware but shoukd be of a substantial and unjustifiable risk (ignorance of risk)

Answer 42

Honest must negate the Mens rea Defense: Not available if conduct would have constituted a lesser crime unless conduct is illegal, charge lesser crime

Answer 43

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)