Crim Law Flashcards

Question

What is the definition of felony murder?

Answer 1

Death results from conduct during attempted/actual felony.

Answer 2

Intent to commit the felony.

Answer 3

If you committed a felony like rob a bank, then it was always foreseeable that someone could have died

Answer 4

Felony murder.

Answer 5

Murder - depraved heart murder - acting with a knowing disregard of a grave risk to human life.

Answer 6

``` BAARK Burger Arson Aggravated Assault Rape Kidnapping ```

Answer 7

No felony murder. Larceny not considered an inherently dangerous felony.

Answer 8

The felony and murder cannot have merged, meaning the felony must be distinct from the murder itself. For example, guy commits a battery by hitting wife on head. If she dies, this is NOT felony murder because we can’t separate the battery from the killing itself. We say: The battery merges into the killing.

Answer 9

The felony murder possibility ends while the felon flees until they reach a place of temporary safety.

Answer 10

i. There must be “logical nexus” (i.e., a causal link) between the felony and the homicide. E.g., Felon cautiously driving away from scene; meteorite falls; swerves and kills woman. Not felony murder. Outside logical nexus. ii. Hypo: charged with felony murder as a chiropractor because he wasn’t licensed, and the patient dies. Court said no not felony murder because the death was so far removed.

Answer 11

No. Under the “agency” approach (majority approach), the felony murder rule does NOT extend to a killing if directly attributable to the act of one other than the defendant or those associated with him in the unlawful enterprise. 2. Under the “proximate cause” approach (minority approach), the felony murder rule extends to a killing if the death is a proximate result (i.e., a foreseeable result) of the felony, even if the person directly responsible for the killing is not associated with the felon.

Answer 12

No. It wasn’t inherently dangerous. Test – look at it “backward” – could we have foreseen death? Not BAARK.

Answer 13

GENERAL INTENT 1. Penetration, however slight, by a man of a woman’s genitalia 2. With the force of threat 3. And no consent 4. Note: With someone other than the Defendant’s wife; the woman must have physically resisted; and there must be evidence corroborating the woman’s testimony Note: Ask would a reasonable person have thought the sex was non-consensual?

Answer 14

- Having sexual intercourse with a woman who is under the age of consent. - Since person underage, they can’t give consent, so all sex below 18 is stat rape. It is an automatic charge. Even if girl consented, it’s rape. - Why is rape not a strict liability crime? Because D needed to intend to have sex and there is no mens rea in strict liability crimes.

Answer 15

No, because you need to complete the willful act of sex.

Answer 16

a) Corroboration of the victim’s testimony not required b) Resistance by the victim not required c) Evidence of victim’s past sexual experiences limited d) Gender neutrality of perpetrator and victim e) Modification or elimination of spousal exemption/marital privilege

Answer 17

1. Limits ability to introduce evidence; 2. Limits ability to cross-examine rape complainants about their past sexual behavior; 3. Prohibits the publication of the identity of an alleged rape victim

Answer 18

1. Unlawful 2. Application of force a. 3rd party force or instrumentality (stick, spit) OK 3. To the person of another a. Hitting an object near, carried by or attached to victim is sufficient (e.g., kicking a cane) Note: If the person stays alive, go for battery.

Answer 19

No, she had to intend to move her arm.

Answer 20

Following, harassing, and threatening a person to the point that the person fears for his or her safety.

Answer 21

General intent

Answer 22

1. Unlawful confinement of a person that involves either: a) Some movement of the victim; OR a. In Common Law, movement had to be out of the country b) Hiding the victim c) Without their consent

Answer 23

Felony murder + Kidnapping. BAARK. Burglary Arson Aggravated Assault Rape Kidnapping.

Answer 24

(1) Unlawfully confining someone; (2) By threat, force or assertion of authority, (3) No obvious means of escape

Answer 25

Injuring or maiming someone to make them less able to fight.

Answer 26

Fighting by agreement. Friend joins you – he is the second in a duel. Bar fight.

Answer 27

That burglary is a theft crime. It is not. It is about the habitation of a home.

Answer 28

1. A breaking (create or expands opening by at least minimal force, fraud or intimidation) 2. And entry; (any portion of body, instrument, dog) 3. Of the dwelling of another (main living activities. This is a crime against habitation law. Must be used for sleeping. If empty house for six months, not a dwelling. Must be occupied. 5. At nighttime; 6. With the intent to commit a felony in the structure (at time of entry)

Answer 29

1. Breaking element eliminated 2. Definition of a dwelling expanded to include most structures 3. Nighttime element eliminated 4. Intent element broadened to include the intent to commit a misdemeanor

Answer 30

Yes, still considered occupied.

Answer 31

Under CL, no, not dwelling.

Answer 32

Yes, if attached garage. Same w/ barn

Answer 33

o First floor window and open – not a breaking o First floor window and closed – breaking o Front door open – breaking o Second floor window and open – breaking

Answer 34

Not general nor specific. | MALICE.

Answer 35

1. The malicious (Intentional or with reckless disregard of an obvious risk) 2. Burning; (The fire must cause damage to the structure) 3. Of the Dwelling of Another (A structure used for sleeping purposes, even if it used for other purposes such as conducting a business)

Answer 36

No clear answer. Look at foreseeability.

Answer 37

Specific. All theft crimes are specific intent crimes.

Answer 38

a) A taking (obtaining possession); b) And carrying away; (even with the slightest movement (e.g., inches); Goods must be able to be carried away; c) Of the personal property (not real property/not farm animals) of another; d) By trespass (without consent); (Can be through fraud, sometimes referred to as larceny by trick e) With intent to permanently deprive (i.e., intent to steal).

Answer 39

No, no taking and carrying away.

Answer 40

Larceny, because you deprived them of funds.

Answer 41

No, because you did not have intent to steal.

Answer 42

Yes because it can be taken and carried away.

Answer 43

a) This gets us around the concurrence requirement. In Continuing Trespass, act and mental state do NOT have to happen at the same time. You got it mistakenly, you didn’t know you had it, but then you decide to steal. If you start simply with a trespass (to stay warm) and then decide to steal, this newly formed intent to steal will complete the crime. If you mistakenly discover you have the goods of another – you can keep it or give it back. If you give it back no foul. If you keep it, larceny.

Answer 44

Larceny? Then possession or title? Then force?

Answer 45

Specific intent - intent to permanently deprive.

Answer 46

a) The fraudulent conversion for your own use; b) Of the personal property of another; c) By a person in lawful possession of that property (custody insufficient - then just larceny); d) With intent to permanently deprive

Answer 47

a) In embezzlement, you start with lawful possession = substantial discretion and control over the property, while in larceny you never had lawful possession

Answer 48

Larceny (Breaking of the Bulk Doctrine)

Answer 49

Larceny (Breaking of the Bulk Doctrine)

Answer 50

Larceny, you never had possession because you did not have the keys.

Answer 51

Embezzlement

Answer 52

a. Obtaining TITLE; (if you rent, not title) b. To the personal property of another; c. By an intentional false representation; (the victim must rely upon it and cause them to pass title); the defendant must either have known the statement to be false or have intended that the victim rely on the false representation d. Of a material past or present fact (not opinion); e. With intent to permanently deprive; Note: the person passing title to you must have intended to pass title and had the authority to do so. For example, if I go to bank and write other person name on account and I get money – the cashier intended to and is empowered to transfer – theft by false pretenses.

Answer 53

Possession obtained

Answer 54

Larceny by trick the D obtains possession; in false pretenses the D obtains title. Otherwise, they operate in the same manner

Answer 55

False pretense.

Answer 56

Larceny by trick.

Answer 57

1. The taking of the property of another; 2. from his or her person or in their presence; 3. by violence or threat to use immediate force; 4. with the intent to deprive them of it permanently.

Answer 58

No, no violence involved.

Answer 59

Yes, you don’t need to know it happened.

Answer 60

As larceny.

Answer 61

Destruction of property

Answer 62

Malicious mischief. Not larceny because no taking and carrying away.

Answer 63

Making a false writing With legal significance. Uttering is introducing it into commerce. So if you make fake money and then use it. Two crimes. Forge a check and cash it (latter is the utterance) ii. The writing must have legal significance. iii. The writing must be false. iv. Intent to defraud

Answer 64

Unlawful making of money in the similitude of the genuine.

Answer 65

Extortion is to threaten prosecution of a crime OR demand money for the corrupt collection of a fee. When G tells Flat that he will burn the store to the ground if he does not put money in an envelope for him the next day, he is attempting to extort the owner for money. G can be validly convicted of attempted extortion

Answer 66

Possession of drugs AND knowledge you had it.

Answer 67

1. Where a statute imposes a duty 2. By certain relationships – parents to children; spouses to each other 3. By a contract – doctor/patient 4. You created a risk to someone 5. You voluntarily assisted someone and put them in a worse position - The way to approach these questions. (1) was there a duty to act (2) list the categories (3) list the pertinent duty – created risk (4) if someone died, do homicide analysis

Answer 68

Incomplete.

Answer 69

a. The specific intent to perpetrate a crime; AND | b. An overt act / substantial step beyond mere preparation that falls short of completing the crime.

Answer 70

Social harms exist even when crimes incomplete.

Answer 71

Lying in wait, recon on location, collecting materials for crime, encouraging victim to go to location.

Answer 72

The serious urging or asking of another to commit a criminal act with the intent that the person solicited commit the intended crime. Note - the other person need not agree.

Answer 73

Solicitation.

Answer 74

Nothing. Factually impossible that crime can occur.

Answer 75

No, no defense, we still need to protect society.

Answer 76

No, because solicitation requires the intent that the other person commits the crime and here they cannot commit it.

Answer 77

Attempted larceny.

Answer 78

1. A Conspirator may be held liable for crimes committed by co-conspirators so long as: a) The crimes must have been committed in furtherance of the initial criminal objective; AND b) They were within the reasonably foreseeable scope of the criminal plan. If you see the word "agreement" bring up conspiracy and Pinkerton Liability. Then, for those not involved in the agreement, raise accomplice liability including accessories. Accomplice does not require agreement, at the moment you can decide to help your friend w/murder.

Answer 79

Accomplice liability allows the court to find a person criminally liable for acts committed by a different person. If a person aids, assists, or encourages another in the commission of a crime, they are said to be an “accomplice” to the crime. The person who actually commits the act is called the “principal.” The crime for which an accomplice provides assistance is called the “target crime”. - Principal in the First Degree - committed the crime; present; pulled trigger for example. - Principal in the Second Degree - present at the crime, assisted the principal in the first degree in committing the crime, for example, drove get away car, handed the guy the gun (used interchangeable with accomplice) - Accessory before the fact: Help principal in the first degree before the crime; not present; help procure weapons; help plan getaway route; help lure victim to site - Accessory after the fact: Helps principal in the first degree after the crime was committed; lies to police about whereabouts, helps bury weapons. Must know a crime was committed. Not charged with accomplice liability; only charged with the crime of accessory after the fact. Note the underlying crime must have been completed for you to be charged with accessory after the fact. NOTE: Under Common Law, you have to prosecute principal in first degree before accomplice, and accomplice cannot be convicted of a more serious crime than principal.

Answer 80

In the latter, you encourage someone to commit a crime. In accomplice liability, that is not an element. In both crimes, specific intent is required.

Answer 81

1. Hypo: Person who rapes woman at bar is principal in first degree. Guy who holds her arms down w knowledge act is occurring, he is a principal in second degree and is also guilty of rape. The guys at bar screaming do it can also be convicted to rape for encouraging/counseling at the scene of crime (is this solicitation). The people at bar didn’t say anything, but admitted they liked what was going on – they can’t be convicted of anything because there is no legal duty to rescue and they did no acts in furtherance of the crime. The bartender state statute requires efforts to control patrons in a bar – can be charged with rape – because he has a legal duty to act and didn’t do anything (non-act). The owner of bar at home is no crime bc he doesn’t have the knowledge of anything. Drunk guy standing outside when police came and said everything is fine in the bar. If he did know what was going on – treated as an accessory by putting the person in an unsafe position. After crime, principal in first degree goes to friend’s house and friend drives him to CA. Friend is charged with accessory after the fact.

Answer 82

No, there is not intent in strict liability whereas felony murder requires the intent to commit the felony.

Answer 83

Because there is no intent in strict liability, you are charged even if you didn't know you were doing it, but in statutory rape, you had to have the general intent to commit the act of sex.

Answer 84

Selling Liquor to Minors, speeding

Answer 85

Efficiency. We can’t have a trial for every speeding ticket. Don’t have the resources. Very difficult for some crimes to show mens rea. Very fact based. Doesn’t matter what you were thinking. The act speaks for itself.

Answer 86

A. Transfers the mental state/intent of the Defendant from one victim to another. Includes all specific intent crimes. B. Example - If a murderer intends to kill John, but accidentally kills George, intent is transferred from John to George, and the killer is held to have had criminal intent

Answer 87

A. The actus and mens rea have to go together at the same time. Exception - continuing trespass doctrine

Answer 88

1. The McNaughten Rule. To be deemed legally insane (which is a legal term, not a medical term), you must either have not know what you were doing OR you did not know what you were doing is wrong. So I killed her but didn't know I was moving my hand with a gun in it OR I killed her on purpose but a voice in my head told me to do it. Insanity is an ABSOLUTE defense. Note: On mental illness, cover both McNaughten for legally insane defense and the partial defense for mental illness/diminished capacity Other tests for insanity The Irresistible Impulse Rule - I could not control my impulses. Model Penal Code Test - I did not have capacity to a) To appreciate the wrongfulness of the unlawful act; OR b) To confirm his conduct to the requirements of the law. Durham Test - a Defendant is entitled to acquittal if the unlawful act would not have been committed BUT FOR the Defendant’s mental illness.

Answer 89

1. Under 7 years old, no culpability 2. 7-14 years old, rebuttable presumption of incapacity 3. Over 14 years old, presumed capable

Answer 90

Utilitarianism theory – people who are legally insane cannot be deterred so it doesn’t fill the deterrence goals; punishment of an insane person is pointless; incapacitation makes sense because danger to community but should be done through mental health services in the civil law system

Answer 91

No, because you needed to understand the outcome of the act and if you are insane you did not know what you were doing or you did not know what you were doing was wrong. Note: If you are trying to lie or you are running from a crime scene, you will not be able to claim insanity.

Answer 92

A PARTIAL defense which can downgrade a charge from for example murder to involuntary manslaughter, because the defendant's mental illness makes it unlikely they can form specific intent to commit a crime. You go to mental hospital until they say you are OK to be released and then you go to prison.

Answer 93

Voluntary intoxication is not a defense to a general intent crime, because general intent crimes are based on recklessness, and intoxication is recklessness. Voluntary intoxication CAN be a defense to a specific intent crime, in that the defendant was so intoxicated he could not have intended the specific outcome. This is a partial defense that will mitigate the crime down from murder to voluntary manslaughter.

Answer 94

Yes. Involuntary intoxication is an absolute defense.

Answer 95

The ingestion of an intoxicating substance under duress or without knowledge of its intoxicating effects.

Answer 96

None. You are charged.

Answer 97

Mistake of fact. I thought it was my book. A. For specific intent crimes, a mistake of fact that negates a necessary intent is a defense if the mistake is unreasonable B. For general intent/negligence crimes, the mistake must be a reasonable one in order to be a defense.

Answer 98

Ignorance of the law is no excuse. o Vagueness o authorized reliance. is a defense. You can only rely on an authorized agency under law that is authorized the interpret the law – government agencies.

Answer 99

Defendant doesn’t have a key fact critical of convicting me of the crime

Answer 100

No. You can get involuntary manslaughter. Because first degree murder is a specific intent crime, the mistake of FACT can NEGATE that intent.

Answer 101

Remember - insanity is on the test. McNaughten Rule.

Answer 102

Do a modern law murder analysis.

Answer 103

1. Under “agency” approach (majority approach), the felony murder rule does NOT extend to a killing if directly attributable to the act of one other than the defendant or those associated with him in the unlawful enterprise. 2. Under the “proximate cause” approach (minority approach), the felony murder rule extends to a killing if the death is a proximate result (i.e., a foreseeable result) of the felony, even if the person directly responsible for the killing is not associated with the felon.

Answer 104

- Placing someone in anticipation of immediate bodily contact. - An unsuccessful battery - Specific intent to commit a battery - Words don't mean anything, but it could be extortion.

Answer 105

- Placing someone in anticipation of immediate bodily contact) OR a frightening assault - An unsuccessful battery - Specific intent to commit a battery - Note I point a gun at you - a frightening assault. I shoot it. Murder.

Answer 106

- The nighttime element has been removed. - The dwelling house another is still applicable but burglary can apply to other structures as well - The breaking element eliminated

Answer 107

- Specific intent - Possession of drugs; and knowledge you had it. Note: Drug crimes did not exist in the common law.

Answer 108

- The choice of two evils - I had to commit the crime in order to prevent a bigger crime from occurring - The defense of necessity does NOT apply to murder - Make economic arguments, utilitarian arguments, whatever you want

Answer 109

manslaughter because every time you commit a manslaughter you commit a felony. Do NOT use a battery resulting in death as a felony murder. There is a merger limitation. Also the felony must have a proximal nexus to the death. The time limit ends when the felon reaches a temporary place of safety.

Answer 110

Yes. People carry guns, it's competitive. If you are dealing drugs, and in the course of it, someone dies, this is felony murder.

Answer 111

Specific intent - An agreement between two or more people - To commit a crime Note - the crime does NOT have to be completed Note - if one party thinks it's a joke - it CANNOT be a conspiracy because intent is needed

Answer 112

There cannot be a conspiracy in a crime if that crime only required two people to do it. Prostitution and dueling - two people required so it's not a conspiracy. Conspiracy means a GROUP crime; prostitution and dueling are not group crimes.

Answer 113

Abandonment. if you can prove that you changed not only your mind but also your heart. Police arriving doesn’t matter. You were going to kill girl’s boyfriend you sit in car ready to go then go home – you defend attempted murder by saying you changed your mind and you went home. That's a valid defense.

Answer 114

Once the agreement is made, you will be convicted. However, if you want to get out of furtherance of crimes by co-conspirators - you can abandon - you must inform them of it. You will still be guilty of conspiracy.

Answer 115

Abandonment. You would conclude that it is not valid because it would not have been deemed voluntary.

Answer 116

Extortion.

Answer 117

Potential imputability for MODERN LAW aggravated assault. Common Law requires an actual effort to make harmful or offensive contact. Only pointing a gun is a frightening assault under modern law.

Answer 118

Common Law aggravated assault for firing a gun at them and missing.

Answer 119

Defense of others; defense of habitation Note: Defense of habitation is the Castle Doctrine - an exception to the rule that you have to retreat.

Answer 120

Breaking is satisfied by any unauthorized use of force, however slight. Although the back door was unlocked, G and H were unauthorized to enter [and used physical force by activating the latch and opening the door.]

Answer 121

When a fact unknown to the defendant prevents him from carrying out his plan or the target objective is impossible by defendant's means. Factual impossibility is not a defense to attempt crimes. For example, because there was no money in the cash register, G would not have been able to commit larceny. However, factual impossibility is not a defense to attempt crimes so this would not negate guilt of attempted larceny

Answer 122

Self-defense occurs when D reasonably believes imminent unlawful of nondeadly force on him, reasonably believes the force is necessary, reasonable degree of force is used and D didn't provoke attack and wasn't the initial aggressor.

Answer 123

Self-defense is available to a defendant if (1) the Defendant is not the aggressor; AND (2) the Defendant is confronted with imminent deadly / non deadly force; AND (3) the Defendant reasonably believes non deadly / deadly force is needed. NOTE: Deadly force can be used to repel deadly force to LIFE. Even if property involved, if LIFE there, then it is not using deadly force to protect a property, it is to protect a LIFE. If no life involved, no deadly force. You need to prove a reasonable person thought their life was in danger. Note: For deadly force, unless you are in your own home or you have no opportunity to escape, you have the duty to retreat. Note: On reasonably believes – go into a detailed, totality of the circumstances exercise Note: If guns are not allowed in a jurisdiction, there is no defense for self-defense no matter what. Note: If non-deadly force, you do not have the duty to retreat. Stand your ground rules. Note: If you were the aggressor, it is an imperfect self defense and can result in voluntary manslaughter. Note: if deadly force and they did NOT have deadly force – DO have duty to retreat. You have to feel like you’re under the threat of deadly force.

Answer 124

Defense of others is justified if (1) the actions were to protect a family member or employee (2) the protectee had the actual right of defense. Note: even if you reasonably believe he was acting, if it comes up later that your brother started fight, you are guilty because the protectee never had the right

Answer 125

The defense of necessity is available to a defendant if the defendant commits a criminal act during an emergency situation in order to prevent a greater harm from happening. - Choice of two evils, make economic arguments, utilitarian arguments, etc. - NOTE: It is NOT a defense to homicide, because you are choosing your life over another life.

Answer 126

The defense of duress is available to a defendant if the defendant reasonably believed that another person would imminently inflict death or great bodily harm upon him or a family member if he did not commit the crime.

Answer 127

The lens of a reasonable person. A reasonable person would have known that throwing a hammer would hurt someone. A reasonable person would know that ...

Answer 128

Other than in sports, it is not a strong defense. For example, if a fellow dueler consents, that is not a defense to dueling. Society has an interest in still limiting the activities.

Answer 129

No. Excusing the defendant of a crime still results in a crime against humanity.

Answer 130

No. Only in tort law.

Answer 131

- Entrapment is a defense used when someone claims an officer coerced them to do the crime. - The subjective test for entrapment (the majority rule) is that the defense works if the defendant was not predisposed to commit the crime. This is shown by a) does he have priors? OR b) did he agree to do the crime right away? - The objective test for entrapment (the minority rule and used in CA) is that the defense works if a reasonable person would have committed the crime under the same circumstances.

Answer 132

Double jeopardy is a procedural defense that prevents a defendant from being tried twice on the same charges following an acquittal. In other words, you cannot be convicted of a lesser included offense, because that is like being tried for the same offense. Cannot be convicted of joy riding and grand theft auto because joyriding is a part of grand theft auto. You can’t be convicted of attempted murder and murder, because the former is included in the latter. On the test, you will see two statutes. Ask yourself: Is this one a lesser included offense of the other one?  Statute 1: elements A , B, C  Statute 2: elements A, B  Here, Statute 2 is a lesser included and is a violation if tried.  Statute 1: ABCD  Statute 2: ABCE – this is NOT a lesser included.

Answer 133

For murder, argue it was probable. Depraved heart. | For involuntary, argue it was foreseeable. He should have known. A reasonable person would have known.

Answer 134

- If he asks about CHARGE – throw in every possible crime - If he asks about CONVICTED - Couldn’t be convicted of solicitation and the target offense – because solicitation merges with the target offense. Also talk about double jeopardy. And the guy can only be convicted of one murder if one person killed.