crim

Question 1

actus reus

Answer 1

Actus reus is established through a voluntary act, omission, or possession.

a bodily movement that is a product of the effort of determination of the actor,
the government examines attendant circumstances—relevant conditions or facts at the time of the act—to determine if the conduct constitutes a criminal offense.

use for application: reflexive movement or unconscious movement; reflex, convulsion, sleepwalking, hypnosis,

omission
- iability based on an omission
- looking for duty to act/failure to act that caused result
law imposes that duty of which can arise through special relationship
BSLICES

possession
- possession is an act if the possessor knowingly procured or received the thing possessed was illegal

knowing possession, receipt of, or control over illegal materials provides the requisite voluntary physical act for the crime.

• if person has some knowledge that his or her possession is illegal

Question 2

mens rea

Answer 2

intention at moment, you committed violation of offenses

common law (actus reus key element in inferring the requisite intent)

• specific

conscious goal to commit an illegal act - defendant intended proscribed outcome as his purpose

highest level requiring proof that defendant had a particular state of mind that involved the commission of the offense

• general
• a blameworthy state of mind which the person is conscious of engaging in the actus reus of the offense: his mental intent, need only be to perform the physical act itself that is the actus reus of a crime he need not possess any intent to violate the law
• but the gov doesn’t need the prove the defendant sought a particular result but only that only that the defendant engaged consciously
• malice

intent to commit the act or extreme recklessness in engaging in conduct
that constitutes the offense/causes the harm

Question 3

MPC mens rea

Answer 3

purpose (most culpable)

• a person acts purposely with respect to a material element of an often when:
  
  • if the element involves a result, it is his conscious object to cause such result; and (2) if the element involved the attendant circumstance, he is aware of the existence of such circumstances or believed or hope they exist

knowledge

A person acts knowingly with respect to a material
element of an offense when:
(i) if the element involves … the attendant
circumstances, he is “aware” … that such
circumstances exist; and
(ii)if the element involves a result of his conduct, he
is aware that it is “practically certain” that his
conduct will cause such a result

recklessly

(1) consciously disregard (2) of a substantial
and (3) unjustifiable risk that he would (4) cause the death of another.
“whether a risk is unjustifiable must be determined by assessing the
nature and purpose of the actor’s conduct relative to how substantial
the risk is.” = balancing

A “substantial and unjustifiable” risk is “one that is a gross deviation
from the reasonable standard of care

negligently (least culpable)

person acts negligently with respect to a material element of offense when he should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result form conduct

failure to percieve involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the actors situation

Question 4

murder mpc

Answer 4

criminal homicide constitutes murder when it is committed recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life

Question 5

murder CL

Answer 5

unlawful killing done with malice aforethought

malice can be found in any of the following states of mind:
- intent (purpose or knowledge) to kill another human being (wdp)
- intent to inflict greviuos bodily harm on another
- extreme reckless disregard for human life (depraved heart)
- intent to commit a felony (felony murder)

Question 6

murder CL (first degree)

Answer 6

unlawful killing done with malice aforethought

actus rea: voluntary
mens rea: malice including willful, deliberate, and predmeditated

premeditated is:
defendant intended to kill another human being, knew their actions would result in death, and, after forming that intent, reflected on the decision before carrying it out. This reflection—regardless of how long it lasts—is what distinguishes first-degree murder from second-degree murder.

factors:
only in rare cases will direct evidence used; so circumstantial evidence can be used like**
- threats
- pattern of escalating violence
- acquisition of weapon

Question 7

second degree murder (depraved heart)

Answer 7

extreme reckless disregard for human life (depraved heart)

requires conscious disregard of the risk, sufficent under the circumstances to manifest extreme indifference to the value of human life

• doubs factors showing recklessness (PFFFINDS)
  
  • speeding
  • intoxication
  • near or non fatal collisions
  • driving on wrong side of road
  • failure to aid viticm
  • failure to heed traffic signs
  • failure to heed warnings about reckless driving
  • prior record of driving offense (not propensity)

Question 8

second degree murder

Answer 8

(intent to inflict grevious bodily harm)
if you purposely or knowingly caused serious bodily harm and they happened to die but you did not want them to, but they did this a considered second degree as well

any intentional (purposefully or knowingly) killing other than first degree or voluntary manslaughter

Question 9

voluntary manslaughter

Answer 9

a killing that otherwise would be a murder but that has mitigated to manslaughter because it was done upon being reasonably provoked into a sudden heat of passion without cooling off where a reasonable person would not have cooled off

elements:

*heat of passion

• highly inflamed state of mind
• defendant partially lacked capacity to conform to the law
• not every hot tempered individual who flies into a rage at the slightest can claim manslaughter

*adequate provocation → (jury to decide; though judge helps)

• (1)aggravated assault and battery, (2)mutual combat, (3)commission of a serious crime against a close relative, illegal arrest, or (4)observation by a husband of his wife committing adultery, (5)information v. insulting words

provocation suffucient to cause a reasonable person to want to kill or lose control over that desire

*immediate response
- must show a reasonable person would not have cooled off during the time period
- establish that the lack of capacity was direct result of the being adequately provoked!

Question 10

voluntary manslaughter mpc

Answer 10

• criminal homicide constitutes manslaughter when
• it is committed recklessly or
• committed under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance (elliot case)

extreme refers to the greatest degree of intensity away from the norm for that individual; close to insanity but not there

Question 11

involuntary manslaughter

Answer 11

reckless killings (provided that it is not the special type of reckless that elevates vase to depraved heart); in other jurisdictions it is called a criminally negligent killing, or a killing done with ordinary tort negligence

Question 12

mistake of fact (common law)

Answer 12

specific intent:
belief does not have to be reasonable; but it must be in good faith

general intent:
- defendant has good faith belief was legal and belief was reasonable
- requires both good faith and mistake must be reasonable

Question 13

mistake of law (MPC) (defense harder to prove → mistaken about applicable law)

Answer 13

in general; ignorance of law is no excuse → generally unsuccessful

a belief that conduct does not legally constitute an offense is a defense to a prosecution for that offense based upon such conduct when
- he acts in reasonable reliance upon official statement of the law, afterward determined to be invalid or erroneous,

Question 14

concurrence

Answer 14

elements of the offense (actus reus, mens rea, and causation) all must occur simultaneously working together

union of criminal act and the criminal intent

Question 15

cause in fact (common law)

Answer 15

*but for test (actual or factual cause)
- actors conduct is the but for cause of the result if the result would not have occurred when it did but for that conduct
- sometimes called necessary cause test
- counter factual, asking what would have happened if something else had not happened

*substantial factor test
- simultaneous sufficient cause

Question 16

cause in fact (mpc)

Answer 16

• MPC 2.03 (but for)
  
  • conduct is the cause of a result when it is an antecedent but for which the result in question would not have occurred
  • requires the prosecution to establish, harm would not have occurred in the absence of that is, but for the defendants conduct (Burrage case)

Question 17

proximate cause (mpc)

Answer 17

consequence of an act that are not reasonable foreseeable to the act relieve the actor of some degree of criminal liability

was the way the result came about “too remote or accidental in its occurrence to have a just bearing on the actors liability? → time permitting

Question 18

proximate cause (common law)

Answer 18

ultimate question (must be forseeable to be proximate cause)(if unforseeable then its superceding)

*actors that tend to break casual chain
- the intervening but-for cause was
- unforeseeable
- contributory negligence of victime
- more than a de minimum contribution to the result
- an act (not an omission) (omission tends to preserve chain
- free, deliberate and informed human act

Question 19

harm

Answer 19

the result of the act, the injury to another or to society

occurs in all crimes
- can be focused on harm only to actor
- victimless crimes

may be physical or mental

Question 20

felony murder

Answer 20

If a person causes the death of another (1) during the course of a felony (2) an attempt to commit a felony, or (3) flight from a felony, then the killing constitutes felony murder. most statues have outlined by the statute which felonies where this rule is applicable too. otherwise there is 4 liability limiting ways:

Question 21

inchoate crimes

Answer 21

• those were the full social harm sought to be prevented has not yet occurred
• state has interest in intervening before defendant committs crime;

an inchoate crime (one where the feared social harm has not yet taken place)

classic inchoate crimes are attempt, soliciation, conspiracy

Question 22

attempt

Answer 22

• the attempt is the direct movement towards the commission beyond mere preparation and with the necessary mental state
  
  • beyond mere preparation; must come within close degree of proximity to completion of crime

requires:
-(1) specific intent to comitt crime (bring about completed crimes non-mental state elements, even if they don’t occur**

• (2) performance of sufficient act toward its commission; and**
• (3)failure to commit the crime (if all elements exist, then we would have a completed crime, not attempt)**

Question 23

types of attempt

Answer 23

all planned acts necessary for the completed crime have occurred but an attendant circumstance believed to exist is in fact missing

all planned acts necessary for the completed crime have occurred but failed to achieve a require result

the planned acts necessary to constituting the act for the complete crime have in fact not been completed

Question 24

complete v. incomplete attempt

Answer 24

complete:
if you are close to last act you can argue complete attempt → when defendants conduct has satisfy last act

incomplete:
purposefully does or omits to do anything which under the circumstances as he believed them to be, is an act or omission constituting a substantial step

Question 25

attempt actus reus CL

Answer 25

UPPID used to determine at what point does defednant cross line from prpeartion area, into the zone of incomplete attempt establishing the actus reus for attempt physical proximity dangerous proximity - looks to see what is left to be done; if the last proximate act is done, is suffucient but not required - focuses on actors action; was it beyond mere preperation indespensible element probable desistance - when act would have been completed without some type of interference → reasonable person in defendant circumstance is unlikely to commit crim Unequivocally or re ipsa loquitor - **objectivism (common law)** - actus reus has significant independence of men reas - **focus is on actors conduct, it must be dangerous, which must manifest criminality*** - punishable for causing fear in mind of reasonable person

Question 26

attempt actus reus MPC

Answer 26

substaintial step focus on what has already been done purposefully engages in conduct which would constitute crime if circumsrances were a she believes them to be examples include: - lying in wait - unlawful entry - possession of specially designed materials

Question 27

attempt mens rea CL

Answer 27

requires specific intent** Attempt mens real: The Majority rule requires 3 mental states: 1. Purpose to bring about the act and any results as required elements of the completed crime 2. Knowledge of any attendant circumstances; 3. Mental states necessary for the completed crime purpose to bring about the act and any results as required elements of the completed crime conscious objective to manifest the proscribes outcome of the underlying crime

Question 28

impossibility defenses

Answer 28

**pure legal impossibility (MPC & CL) - law does not prohibit actors conduct or the result that she has sought to achieve but the actor believe that is does - actor engages in lawful conduct that they actively believe **hybrid legal impossibility (cl is defense) (mpc no defense) - the actors goal is illegal but commision of the offense is impossible due to a factual mistake regarding a legal status of some attedant circumstance that constitutes an element of the charged crime **factual impossibility factual impossibility (no defense) - the actors intended end constitutes a crime but she fails to consummate it because of a factual circumstance unknown to her or beyond her control - inherent factual impossibility (both mpc & CL) - method used to try to accomplish crime is one that a reasonable person would view as completely inappropriate to the objectives sought

Question 29

renunciation (abandonment) defense CL (presumption of abandonment) for attempt

Answer 29

not recgonized as defense

Question 30

renunciation (abandonment) MPC (501.4) attempt

Answer 30

(1) prevented the successful comission of the offense, attempted solicitation consipiracy (2) under circumstances manifesting complete voluntary renunciation of the persons criminal purpose

Question 31

objectivism v. subjectivism

Answer 31

objectivism (CL) - focus is on actors conduct, it must be dangerous, which must manifest criminality* subjectivism (MPC) - it suffices that the actor is dangerous; the act itself need not be

Question 32

conspiracy CL

Answer 32

agreement (expressed or implied) between two or more people to commit a crime with purpose to bring about crime having specific intent to agree and knowledge of crime all jurisdictions don’t require overt act, while some jurisdictions do prosecution must prove BRD agreement was entered between more than one person requiring a plurality conspriacy does not end until the desired reuslt comes about, or they all abandon when there’s multiple people there are two different types wheel and chain wheel: when there is a controlling person located in the center and other less central members around chain: when all conspirators are linked

Question 33

unilateral v bilateral consipracy approach

Answer 33

unilateral (MPC) - implied agreement through behavior indicates agreements - only 1 has to agree - specific intent to agree and acknowlege bilateral: - reqiuires both parties to agree to committ a criminal act - specific intent to agree and knowledge of crime *overt act in furtherance of the agreement * (is only required in jurisidctions with mixture will require proof of overt act)

Question 34

whartons rule

Answer 34

(CL defense to conspiracy) - When the crime by its very nature requires two people, courts have precluded use of conspiracy (instead will be charged with actual crime) exception; - if more ppl than necessary are present than neccesary

Question 35

actus resu conspiracy (CL)

Answer 35

actual agreement unilateral agreement is enough in MPC

Question 36

mens rea CL (conspiracy)

Answer 36

- specific intent to agree to crime - requires knowledge of agreement plus the specific intent to agree to commit (bring about) the substaintive crime → you must want to bring about the substaintive cirme but are liable even if it does not occur or is not even attempted - can be liable even if crime has not been attemped - intent to agree can be inferred due to knowledge of crime of personal stake within crime - intent to agree to bring about the crime can be inferred from knowledge plus stake in the outcome → but presnce and knwoeldge are insuffeincet** - ***also must show intent to commit crime alongside intent to agree***

Question 37

solicitation (CL)

Answer 37

Consummate when the actor communicate the words or performs the physical act that constitutes the invitation; requests, commands, forces or encourages another to do the act that’s constitute a crimes requires specific intent to seek the comission of the offense actus reus voluntary act to communicate men’s rea requires specific intent

Question 38

accomplice liability

Answer 38

accomplice liability is not a crime but rather a doctrine that makes an accomplice liable for the crimes committed by his principle or by co-accomplice whom the actors assist in committing an offense - each accomplice is often liable for all acts committed by other accomoplices principal in 1st degree = perpetrator (may be more than one) (Offensive conduct) principal in 2nd degree = aiding and abetting while actually or constructively present (aiding an abetting) (specific intent) accessory before the fact = not constructively present, but aided, encouraged, solicited offense (aiding an abetting) (specific intent) accessory after the fact = knowingly aid principal in avoiding detection of crime or seizure (obstruction of justice, misprison of felony, harboring fugitive actus reus - - acts that could be construed as “**encouragement**” or derivation is considered enough - **encouragement is conduct by any means countenances or approves the criminal action to another** - **act itself consist of aiding the principal directly, indirectly, physically or emotionally - aid must make it easier on principal; no but for aid requirement** prosecution must prove prosecution must prove that a principal committed the crime but there is no requirement of proving the principal was convicted of crime mens rea requires two intents - purpose to aid - intent that primary party commit the target offense (ie, the intent to promote of facilitate the target offense)

Question 39

accomplice liability CL

Answer 39

under accomplice liability, an actor (accomplice) is held accountable for the conduct of another person (principal) whoim the actors assist in committing an offense - each accomplice is often liable for all acts committed by other accomoplices failure to convict the principle does not affect the conviction of an accomplice so long as the gov proves that A principal comitted the offense

Question 40

accomplice liability actus reus

Answer 40

- **encouragement is conduct by any means countenances or approves the criminal action to another** - **act itself consist of aiding the principal directly, indirectly, physically or emotionally - aid must make it easier on principal; no but for aid requirement** - acts that could be construed as “**encouragement**” or derivation is considered enough acts: - **it is sufficient act for accomplice liability to do any:** - actual aid - agreeing to aid even if not aid provided - attempting to aid, even if attempt is unsuccessful - soliciting another to commit a crime

Question 41

linking presence & intent for accomplice liability

Answer 41

gov can prove requisite knowledge and specific intent by circumstantial evidence that evidence must stil include some indica of the specific elements of the underlying crime - conversations related to illegal activity - exercise of authority within conspiracy - explicit confirmation - receivign share of profit etc,.

Question 42

accomplice liability mens rea

Answer 42

two intents required: - purpose to aid - intent that primary party commit the target offense (ie, the intent to promote of facilitate the target offense)

Question 43

accomplice liability (MPC)

Answer 43

- a person is an accomplice of another person in the commission of an offense if with the purpose of promoting or faciliting the offense he: - **solicits** such other person to commit it or - **aids or agrres** to aid aonother in the planning or commting of crime or - **fails** to make a proper effort to prevent the crime if he has a legal duty to do so

Question 44

defendant has no accomplice liability when:

Answer 44

- **he is victim** - **conduct is inevitably incident to commission** - **he terminates his complicity prior to commission of the offense and wholly deprieves it of effectiveness OR gives timely wanring to the law enforcement or otherwise makes propert effort to prevent commission of the offense**

Question 45

accomplice liability connecting to solicitation

Answer 45

connects to solitication as solicitation makes one liable for the crime of solicitation even if actor fails to communicate with the person he solcits if the actors conduct was designed to do so so an uncommunicated solicitation can make actor an accomplice solicitation to commit to a crime meets the act requirment for accomoplice liability so an uncommunicated solitication can also make thr solicitor an accomplice uncommunicated solicitory can still be guilty ex: sent letter to kill, never was never recieved; still guilty of solicitation despite it being uncommunicated

Question 46

accomplice liability connection to extreme reckless indifference murder

Answer 46

connection to extreme reckless indifference murder if person does not rebut or refute presumption of extreme reckless indifference for human life person can be guilty of extreme reckless indifference if person does rebut the presumption, the state must then prove upon all circumstances that person is guilty of extreme reckless indifference

Question 47

accomplice liability connection to omission act

Answer 47

- connection to omission to act: generally not liable fro harms resulting from omissions however if there an exception in small number of categories where there is a duty to act - if alleged accomplice fits into a categories, and if his failure to act ends up aiding principle and if his purpose failing to act was to aid purpose, he can become accomplice by omission

Question 48

defenses

Answer 48

4 broad catergories: alibi excuses justification procedural

Question 49

alibi

Answer 49

- two approaches to decide what constitutes alibi - (1)general denial that defendant was present at scene of crime** - (2)defense premise on evidence that defendant was at different place at time of crime** - **the defendant is able to provide credible statement about wherabouts at time of crime that is verified by a witness**

Question 50

excuses defense

Answer 50

(admit what they did was wrong but under circumstances what they did was not wrong) PIIMADU (1) provocation (2) insanity** (3) involuntary intoxication** (4) mistake** (5) age** (6) duress (7) uncousciousness**

Question 51

justification defense

Answer 51

focuses on act and not the actor - they exculpate otherwise criminal conduct because it benefits society, or because the conduct is in some other way judged to be socially useful - (1) self-defense - (2) necessity - (3)defense of others** - (4)defense of home & property** - (5)consent** - (6)resisting unlawful arrest**

Question 52

procedural defense

Answer 52

- (1) double jeopardy** - (2) denial of speedy trial** - (3) entrapment** - (4) prosecutorial misconduct**

Question 53

aaltperp defense (cross between alibi & justification)

Answer 53

- has right to produce evidence that that 3rd party committed crime - needs to show more than just presence at crime - a defendant who is able to offer evidence of both motive and opportunity by an AALPERP, however, is in a different posistion**

Question 54

rationale for defenses

Answer 54

justified actor engages in conduct that is not culpable because its benefits outweighs harm or evil of the offense; an excused actor admits the harm of evil but nonetheless claims of absence of personal culpability; and actor exempt under a nonexculpatory public policy defense

Question 55

self-defense

Answer 55

requires (1) actual or apparent reasonable belief that theres a threat of unlawful or immediate force against person. it requires the actors response be (2) proportional measured by the degree of threatened harm, and needs to be (3) neccessary to avoid being the victim deadly force. - trigger (actual or apparent belief) - proportional (measured by degree of measured harm - necessity (reasonable believes its necessary to avoid being the victim (1) trigger: actual or apparent (reasonable belief) threat of** - unlawful and - immediate force (2) necessity: death/serious bodily harm (reasonable belief)** - an actor may only use deradly force when “necessary” to avoid being the victim of deadly force - an actor may only use deadly force when the others actors use of deadly force is immeninet (3) proportionality: measured by degree of threatened harm** - an acor may not use more force than the force being directed at him or her in order to avoid being the victim of such force must be reasonable belief

Question 56

stand your ground:

Answer 56

- removes duty to retreat - places no obligation on potential victim is instead allowed to respond to force with force even if flight is a possibility - stand your ground allows citizens to use deadly force if they feel their life is in danger

Question 57

castle doctrine

Answer 57

when a person is attacked in his own dwelling he may stand at bay and turn on and kill his assailant if this is apparently necessary to save his own life or to protect himself from great bodily harm.

Question 58

retreat

Answer 58

Majority rule — An actor is not required to “retreat minority; must retreat if they can do so safely unless (1) they are in their castle, or (2) if they are the intial aggressor

Question 59

robbery

Answer 59

- **defined as the tressppary taking and carrying away, with intent to steal, the personal property of another, from his person or immediate presence by violence or intimidation with intent to permantently deprieve** - **violence must occur before or at the rime of the taking** disitngusihes robbery from larceny was the use of force no matter how slight to accomplish the taking from the person or presence of victim larceny with extra element of force robbery can occur with a weapon - object is capable of inflicting death or serious injury it is **considered a dangerous object or weapon** - **reasonable appears capable to cause death or serious injury** - fake weapons can be considered weapons if victims would reasonable believe in considering attendeant circumstances

Question 60

burglary

Answer 60

*CL** - breaking and entering the dwelling house of another in nighttime with the intent to commit a felony therein - **elements** - **trespassory (without consent) - attedant cirumstance** - **breaking (voluntary act)** - **entering (voluntary act)** - **dwelling house - attendant cir** - **of another - attendant** - **at night - attendant circrum** - **with intent to comitt crime therin** requires the specific intent to commit a crime upon entry, and that intent must be formed before the burgalry

Question 61

larceny mpc

Answer 61

requires defendant unlawfully take or exercise unlawful control over moveable property or unlawfully transfer immovable property - doesn’t say carrying away like common law - both moveable and immoveable property is subject to theft

Question 62

entrapment

Answer 62

entrapment: (only applies to law enforcement people; if its a regular person, it doesn’t count) people working for gov count as workers CL conception and planing of an offense by an officer and his procurement of it commissioned by one who would not have perpetrated it except for the trickery, persuasion or fraud of the officer - **subjective test (majority) goal: to not create crime or punish those of essentially good character)** - followed by fed courts and many jurisdiction - **inducement and prior deposition,** was defendant willing to commit crime independent of gov action they are pre-disposed if they are ready and willing - **factors to include (only need a few then claim totality of circum)** - **prior arrest** - **prior unconnected bad acts** - **whether gov suggested crime** - **whether crime was for profit** - **whether they showed reluctance, and nature of inducement**

Question 63

entrapment objective test

Answer 63

- Impermissible conduct engaged in by police that would induce law-abiding citizen to commit a crime in similar circumstances - examines whether the government’s activity was so reprehensible that it would induce a hypothetical unwilling person to engage in the illegal conduct

Question 64

battery

Answer 64

- unlawful application of force to another person **actus reus** - touching **mens rea** - general intent

Question 65

embezzlement

Answer 65

- fraudulent conversion of personal property for your own use - different from larceny because victim entrusted the property to defendant, giving consent, and then the defendant then converted it to personal use actus reus: conversion must occur, (misplace trust by conversion) requires specific intent

Question 66

receiving stolen property

Answer 66

(1) recieving stole property (2)with knowledge that it has been stolen and carrying the personal property of another person with (3) intent to permantely todeprive -typically driected primarily at “fence” — middlemen who buy goods at a very low price from thieves and resell them to end users - mere suspicion is not enough - willful blindness can be used to establish knowledge - **with intent to deprive owner permanently** mens rea is specific intent

Question 67

defense of others

Answer 67

defense of others: is a justification defense that - **requires proportionality** - **reasonable belief intervention was lawful** - **Imminent level of danger**

Question 68

imperfect self-defense

Answer 68

honestly believes but unreasonably believes D will be subject to imminent deadly force and that deadly force is necessary to prevent being the victim of deadly force. D uses deadly and it mitigates its manslaughter

Question 69

aggressor rule

Answer 69

- an initial aggressor cannot claim self-defense unless he or she renounces his or her initial aggression

Question 70

defense of property:

Answer 70

- is permissible from trespass or theft when he or she reasonable believe that his or her property is in immediate danger of such an unlawful interference and that use of such force is necessary to avoid that danger - force cannot be used against police - before police arrive force must be porportional

Question 71

duress

Answer 71

excuse defense where it was coerced act by a threat of immenent death of serious bodily injury excuse defense where people is coerced and will be acquitted other than murder on basis of duress if they prove they comitted offense because (1) another person unlawfully threatened to kill or injure her or another perrosn unless they committed crime and (2) they are not at fault in exposing themselves to the threat human forces that is not natural not avilable: - if they commit murder or if they are negligent

Question 72

necessity is subset of self defense

Answer 72

(1) threat of (2) immient injury to the person or person for which there are (3) no reasonable alternatives except the commission of the crime: (4) the defendnats acts must prevent an equal or more serious harm; (5) defednant must not have created the conditions of his own dilemna, and (6) there was a casual link between def acts and the harm he sought to prevent unavailable when: - negligent - choice to commit crime was not the lesser evil

Question 73

larceny by trick

Answer 73

trespassory taking by means of a mistake, trickery, and carrying away of personal property (tangible) of another person with intent to permantely deprieve actus reus: taking away mens rea: intent to acquire possession

Question 74

false pretenses

Answer 74

trespassory taking of the property through trickery by means to transfer of ownership or false statement and carrying away of personal property another person with intent to permanently to deprieve

Question 75

lost of mislaid property

Answer 75

a person who finds lost property under circumstances which give him reasonable clue of inquiry to the true owner, and who appropriates such property to his own use, or to the use of another person who is not entitled therto, without having first made every reasonableness effort to find the owner and restore the property to him, is guilty of larceny, engages in taking possession actus reus: taking and keeping property mens rea: intent to permantely depreive concurrence:

Question 76

two controlling types of conspiracy when theres multiple people

Answer 76

**two controlling types of conspiracy** **wheel** - has a controlling person located in center of wheel and other less central member of conspiracy - the controlling person deals with the everyone who do not need to deal with each other (seperate conspiracies) **chain** - no controlling person, but theres a link between all (one big conspiracy)

Question 77

special relationships under omission of duty

Answer 77

S (school/students) L (landowner/tenant) I (inkeeper/guest) C (custodian/prisioner) C (common carrier/passenger E (employer/employee) B (buisness/customer)

Question 78

infancy

Answer 78

- under 7 cannot be held resposnibole - under 14 between 7-14 older were preseumed incapable - over 14, treated as adult

Question 79

invol intoxication

Answer 79

defendant is required to prove that he unwittingly consumed an intoxicating substance that produce the same symptoms and required by the Mnaughten test of legal insanity (no cognitive control) though not the result of mental disease or defect (a kind of temporary insanity - coerced - mistake - proscribed

Question 80

vol intoxication

Answer 80

voluntary ingesting of any foreign substance most notably, alcohol, or drugs including lawfully prescribed medication that disturbs actors mental or physical capabiliteis

Question 81

beyond reasonable doubt

Answer 81

state of case where after all evidence has been considered it leaves the minds of the jury in a manner where they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction to the moral certainty of the truth to be charged