Crim Flashcards
What are the specific intent crimes? Why is the consequence of this characterization?
- Conspiracy
- Solicitation
- Attempt
- First Degree Murder [note: req. premeditation]
- Assault
- Larceny
- Embezzlement
- False Pretenses
- Robbery
- Burglary
- Forgery
-These crimes qualify for the additional defenses of (i) VOLUNTARY INTOXICATION and (ii) UNREASONABLE MISTAKE OF FACT
What are the malice crimes?
- Common Law Murder
- Arson
Malice crimes require reckless indifference
Common Law Murder
Killing will malice aforethought. Malice aforethought can be established by (i) intent to kill (ii) intent to inflict great bodily harm; (iii) reckless disregard for an unjustifiably high risk to human life [depraved heart]; or (iv) a killing committed during the course of an inherently dangerous [B-A-R-R-K] felony.
~~ second degree murder
First Degree Murder
(i) premeditated and deliberate killing
(ii) enumerated felony murder
What are the general intent crimes?
- Battery
- False Imprisonment
- Kidnapping
- Rape
General intent = acting with awareness of all factors constituting the crime
MPC Analysis of Fault (mental states)
- Purposely: conscious object
- Knowingly: aware of the nature of conduct/existing circumstances, or high probability
- Recklessly: disregard for substantial and unjustifiable risk; gross deviation from standard of care
- Negligently: failure to be aware of substantial and unjustifiable risk
To what crimes does transferred intent apply?
- Homicide
- Battery
- Arson
Accomplice Liability [∆ + liability]
Principal: person who commits illegal act or causes agent to do so
––Liability: liable for principal crime
Accomplice: person who aids or encourages P to commit the illegal conduct
––Liability: liable for principal crime if accomplice intended to aid or encourage crime
Accessory After the Fact: person who aids another to escape knowing P has committed a felony
––Liability: liable for separate, less serious crime of being an accessory after the fact
Accomplice Liability: required mental state
(1) intent to facilitate the principal and (2) intent that principal commit the substantive offense
Note: mere knowledge that crime will result is not enough (e.g., store clerk who sells crowbar when customer has said he is going to use it to break into a house and steal is NOT sufficient to be an accomplice to burglary)
Accomplice Liability: withdrawal
To avoid liability, person must withdraw before the crime becomes unstoppable.
––If accomplice merely encouraged P, repudiation is sufficient
––If accomplice went beyond mere encouragement, then needs to attempt to neutralize his assistance
––––Notifying the police = sufficient
Solicitation
Asking or advising someone to commit a crime, with the intent that the person solicited commit the crime.
Note: renunciation/withdrawal is not a defense
Note: merger applies (i.e., if solicitor asks a person to commit robbery, and that person does it, both the solicitor and the person can be convicted of robbery, but the solicitor cannot also be convicted of solicitation, b/c solicitation merged)
Conspiracy
(1) agreement b/n 2+ persons
(2) intent to agree
(3) intent to achieve object of agreement
CL: must be bilateral (i.e., between 2 or more persons (no feigning agreement)), but overt act is not required
MPC: can be unilateral (i.e., only one party has genuine criminal intent), but over act is required (which can be satisfied by mere preparation)
Wharton Rule
Where 2 or more people are necessary for commission of crime, a conspiracy requires that more people participate than are necessary for the crime (e.g., adultery)
Conspiracy: what happens if only 1 of the defendants is charged and tried? what happens if all defendants are tried, and all are acquitted except for one?
If only 1 ∆ is charged and tried, that does NOT preclude a conviction for conspiracy
If all but one ∆ is acquitted, that last ∆ cannot be convicted of conspiracy (b/c the acquittals show he had no one to conspire with!)
When does a conspiracy end? Are acts of concealment part of conspiracy?
Upon completion of the wrongful objective. Acts of concealment are not part of a conspiracy, unless otherwise agreed to in advance.
When will a conspirator be liable for a co-conspirator’s crimes?
When those crimes were committed in furtherance of the conspiracy and were foreseeable
Conspiracy: withdrawal
Withdrawal is NOT a defense to conspiracy itself, but is a defense to the substantive crimes of co-conspirators (i.e., target crime + crimes committed in furtherance).
A person can withdraw by notifying ALL members of the conspiracy of her intent to withdraw. Notice must be given with sufficient time for co-conspirators to abandon their plans. If the person has provided assistance as an accomplice, she must take steps to neutralize.
Does conspiracy merge w/ target offense?
NO
Attempt
An act done with intent to commit a crime that falls short of completing the crime.
Specific intent crime.
Act: must go BEYOND mere preparation.
––Proximity test (act must be dangerously close to successful completion of crime)
––Substantial step test [majority + MPC]
Is abandonment a defense to attempt?
Not at common law. MPC allows it, provided the abandonment is fully voluntary and complete.
Note: merger applies
What are the four tests for insanity
i-M’Naghten: disease of the mind cause defect such that (a) ∆ did not know the WRONGFULNESS of his actions; OR (b) ∆ did not understand the NATURE + QUALITY of his actions
ii-Irresistible Impulse: because of mental disease, unable to control impulse or conform conduct to the law
iii-Durham (N.H.): BUT FOR the mental illness, ∆ would not have done the act
iv-MPC: mental disease that resulted in ∆ LACKING SUBSTANTIAL CAPACITY to (a) APPRECIATE the criminality of his conduct or (b) CONFORM his conduct to the law
- ∆ need not raise @ arraignment
- if ∆ raises the issue, he CANNOT refuse exam from court-appointed psychiatrist
- ∆ must prove insanity by PoTE
Diminished capacity
In some jx, ∆ can assert mental defect short of insanity. Typically limited to SI crimes.
Voluntary Intoxication
Knowingly and voluntarily taking an intoxicating substance. This will serve as a defense to specific intent crimes.
Defense is not available where ∆ purposely becomes intoxicated in order to establish the defense (e.g., “gets drunk to muster up the courage”)
Defense does not apply to crimes that only require a “reckless” mental state
Involuntary Intoxication
Taking an intoxicating substance without knowing its effects or taking it under duress or pursuant to medical advice. Involuntary intoxication is treated as a mental illness, such that the relevant insanity test will apply. Involuntary intoxication is a defense to all crimes.
Infancy
CL: ∆ under age 14
Modern: under 13 or 14
CL: if under 7, then defense to all crimes; if under 14, rebuttable presumption
Modern: defense to adult crimes
Is voluntary intoxication a defense to CL murder
NO!! CL murder = malice crime. Voluntary intoxication is only a defense to SI crimes (e.g., first-degree murder).
Self-defense + level of force
Imperfect Self Defense
Person can use non-deadly force to the extent she reasonably believes necessary to protect herself
Person can only use deadly force if she is threatened with death or GBH
Imperfect Self Defense: where ∆ was at fault for starting altercation and Unreasonably believes in necessity of responding with deadly force, this can serve as a basis for mitigating murder to manslaughter
Defense of others + level of force
Person can use non-deadly force to the extent she reasonably believes necessary to protect another person
Person can only use deadly force if she reasonably believes the other person is threatened with death or GBH
Defense of Dwelling + level of force
Person can use non-deadly force to the extent she reasonably believes necessary to prevent unlawful entry
Person cannot use deadly force to protect property; however, she can use deadly force if the assailant is inside the dwelling and the person reasonably believes she is threatened or the force is necessary to prevent a felony
Resisting arrest + level of force
Person can use non-deadly force in resisting arrest, if it is an improper arrest
Person can use deadly force in resisting arrest, but only if ∆ does NOT know the arrester is a police officer
Necessity + level of force
Person reasonably believes that commission of crime was necessary to avoid an imminent and greater injury to society than that which would occur from the crime. Deadly force can never be used.
Duress
Person reasonably believes that another person would inflict imminent death or GBH on him or a family member if he did not commit the crime. Threat always comes from a human (contra: necessity). Threats to property are sufficient (under modern trend).
DURESS IS NOT A DEFENSE TO INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE
Consent
Can be a defense to minor assaults or batteries if no danger of SBH.
Requirements: (1) voluntary; (2) capacity; (3) no fraud
Entrapment
(1) Criminal design originated w/ law enforcement AND (2) ∆ was NOT predisposed to commit the crime.
On MBE, ∆ will usually fail second requirement
Mistake of Fact
For SI crimes: any mistake that negates intent will be a defense (even if unreasonable)
For all other crimes: mistake must be REASONABLE, and negate intent, to serve as a defense
Assault
(i) Attempted Battery
––SI crime
(ii) Intentional creation in the victim of reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful/offensive contact
Battery
Unlawful application of force to another person resulting in bodily injury or offensive touching
Voluntary Manslaughter
Killing that would be murder, but for adequate provocation. Adequate provocation requires: (1) sudden and intense passion that would have caused RP to be unable to control his actions; (2) ∆ was actually unable to control his actions; (3) RP would not have had time to cool off; (4) ∆ actually did not have time to cool off.
Mere insults ≠ adequate provocation
Involuntary Manslaughter
Killing that was the result of (i) criminal negligence (ii) recklessness [MPC] or (iii) during the commission of an unlawful act (i.e., unenumerated felony murder or misdemeanor manslaughter).
Limitations on Felony Murder
- ∆ must have committed/attempted to commit underling felony
- death must have been foreseeable
- death must have been caused before felon reached place of temporary safety
- ∆ not liable for death of co-felon at hands of police
Felony Murder: Proximate Cause Theory v. Agency Theory
Proximate Cause Theory: a felon is liable for the deaths of all non co-felons that are a proximate result of the felony
Agency Theory: felon is only liable for deaths of non-felons caused by co-felons
CL year-and-a-day rule
For ∆ to be liable for homicide, person must die within year-and-a-day
Is a ∆ liable for murder where death results from negligence medical care or victim’s refusal of medical treatment for religious reasons?
YES!
Larceny
Taking and carrying away the personal property of another by trespass with intent to permanently deprive
Note: watch for continuing trespass (when ∆ develops intent to permanently deprive after the fact)
Robbery
Larceny + Force
Taking the property of another from the person or in the person’s presence by force or threat of immediate force, with intent to permanently deprive
Note: V must give up property b/c of ∆’s threat/force
Note: threats to family member or someone in V’s presence are sufficient
Burglary
Breaking and entering the dwelling of another at night with intent to commit a felony therein
NOTE: dwelling of another is based on OCCUPANCY, not ownership. So if owner leases to T, owner can be liable if other elements met.
Embezzlement
Fraudulent conversion of personal property of another by a person in lawful possession of the property
False Pretenses
Obtaining TITLE to personal property of another by intentional false statement of fact with intent to defraud
Larceny by Trick
Obtaining POSSESSION of personal property of another by intentional false statement of fact with intend to defraud
Extortion
Obtaining property by threats of future harm
Is factual impossibility a defense to attempt?
No
Arson
Malicious burning of a dwelling of another
––CL: charring is enough; scorching is NOT
––Modern: any dwelling is sufficient
NOTE: even under CL approach, the dwelling of another is based on OCCUPANCY, not ownership. So if owner leases to T, owner can be liable if other elements met.
When is a person privileged to use deadly force to prevent a crime?
When it is an inherently dangerous felony
When can a person use deadly force in self defense?
(1) without fault
(2) confronted with unlawful force; and
(3) reasonably believes imminent death or significant bodily injury would result
Attempt: abandonment
General rule: after completion of act that goes beyond mere preparation, abandonment is not a defense
Some jurisdictions recognize the defense–must be (1) fully voluntary (i.e., not b/c crime was made more difficult and (2) a manifestation of a complete renunciation
