crim law Flashcards
physical act to constitute a crime must be
voluntary act
mental state - specific intent
- requires doing an act with a specific intent of objective
- cannot infer specific intent from doing the act
- ex: solicitation, attempt, conspiracy, assault, larceny, robbery, burglary, forgery, false pretenses, embezzlement, and first degree premeditated murder
mental state - malice
- applies to common law murder and arson
- generally shown with (at least) reckless disregard of an obvious or high risk that a particular harmful result would occur
mental state - general intent
- defendant must be aware that is acting in the prescribed manner and that any attendant circumstances required by the crime are present
- can infer general intent from doing the act
Model Penal Code
Purposely/knowingly/recklessly/negligently
- purposely = conscious object to engage in act or cause certain result
- knowingly = as to nature of conduct: aware of the nature of the conduct or that certain circumstance exist; as to result: knows that conduct will necessarily or very likely cause result
- recklessly = conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that circumstances exist or a prohibited result will follow, and this disregard is a gross deviation from a reasonable person standard
- negligently = failure to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that circumstances exist or a prohibited result will follow, and this disregard is a gross deviation from a reasonable person standard
elements of accomplice liability
- must be intentionally aiding, counseling, or encouraging the crime - active aiding, etc., required. mere presence is not enough even if by presence defendant seems to be consenting to the crime or even if defendant fails to notify police
- if crime is one of recklessness or negligence, accomplice must intended to facilitate commission and act with recklessness or negligence
- liability if for the crime itself and all other foreseeable crimes
- accessory after the fact is not an accomplice
defenses to accomplice liability
withdrawal is an affirmative defense if prior to the crimes commission
- if encouraged crime, must repudiate encouragement
- if provided material, must neutralize assistance
- or may notify police or otherwise act to prevent crime
solicitation
elements
1. asking someone to commit a crime
2. with the intent that the crime be committed
defenses
1. the refusal of the legal incapacity of the solicitor is no defense
2. if legislative intent is to exempt solicitor, that is a defense
conspiracy
elements:
1. an agreement
2. an intent to agree
3. an intent to achieve the objective of the agreement, and
4. an over act (most jurisdictions)
liability:
1. each conspirator is liable for all crime of other conspirators if foreseeable and in furtherance of the conspiracy
defenses:
1. withdrawal
-general = only withdrawal from future
crimes, still liable for conspiracy
-MPC = not liable if thwarts conspiracy
2. factual impossibility is no defense
merger:
1. no merger - ca be convicted of both conspiracy and substantive offense
attempt
elements:
1. specific intent and
2. over act = substantial step in commission of crime (mere preparation is not enough)
defenses:
1. factual impossibility is not defense
2. true legal impossibility is always a defense
3. abandonment generally no defense after the substantial steps have begun
-MPC recognizes when fully vol and complete (not a postponement)
insanity defense
- M’Naghten test = disease of the mind aused a defect of reason so defendant lacked the ability at time of his actions to know wrongfulness and understand nature and quality of actions
- irresistible impulse test = unable to control actions or conform conduct to law
- durham test = crime was product of mental disease or defect
- MPC = combination of M’Naghten and irresistible impulse
intoxication defense
voluntary intoxication is a defense if it negates specific intent crime
self defense - nondeadly force
a person may use non deadly force if she reasonably believes force is about to usef on hr, no duty to retreat
self defense - deadly force
a person may use deadly force if:
1. without fault
2. confronted ny unlawful force
3. reasonably believes that she is threatened with imminent death or great bodily harm
duty to retreat before using deadly force:
1. majority rule = no duty
2. minority rule = duty unless:
-can safely retreat
-in ones home
-original aggressor can use df if withdraw
-arrest when officer reasonably believes suspect armed or presents danger to public
-if no right to self defense guilty of voluntary manslaughter under impert self defense theory
defense of others or dwelling
- non deadly force = person reasonably believes that ndf is necessary to protect other or dwelling or to end unlawful entry
- deadly force = only if person reasonably believes that she is threatened with death or great bodily harm
necessity defense
choice of evils - harm to society exceeded by harm of criminal act
- objective test
- not available if defendant is at fault for creating situation requiring choice
- traditionally, choice had to arise from natural forces; modern cases do not have this requirement