crim law Flashcards
Accomplice Liability
A intends to help B commit a crime
A provides assistance to B
B commits crime
A is just as guilty as B
A knowing merely knowing, desiring, or intending for B to commit the crime is not enough to be an accomplice
Also, if A helps B in act but doesn’t know they are helping B commit a crime, they are not an accomplice
A assisting after a crime is complete does not make them an accomplice
If B commits additional crimes, A could be held liable as well, especially if those crime seem to be a furtherance of original crime, or are reasonably foreseeable
Attempt
It is not merely thinking about committing the crime
One must try to complete complete the act in which they are thinking; mere preparation is not enough; must take substantial steps to complete crime (close or dangerous proximity)
Substantial steps must strongly corroborate the defendant’s criminal purpose
MPC definition: a person is guilty of attempt is, acting with the kind of culpability other required for commission of the crime, they:
-purposely engage in conduct that would constitute the crime it the attendant circumstance were as he believes them to be or
-purposely does or omits to do anything that, under the circumstance as he believes them to be, is an act or omission consulting a substantial step in a course planned to culminate in his commission of the crime
-conduct is a substantial step only if it is strongly corroborative of the actor’s criminal purpose
Actor is allowed to renounce criminal activity (must be voluntary and complete) but must be uncoerced or not in fear of getting caught or if intent is transferred to another criminal effort but similar objective or victim
Burglary
Common Law: breaking, entering, the dwelling house, of another, at night, with intent to commit a felony therein
Modern law no longer requires “breaking in” but entry without consent; no longer requires dwelling to a house; no longer requires entry to be at night; mens rea includes felony or any theft
Robbery
Common law: 2 more elements than larceny
Trespassory; taking and; carrying away of the; personal property; of another; with intent to steal
The property must have been taken from the person or in the immediate presence of the owner and the taking was accomplished by force or fear
Always punished more severely that larceny but the amount stolen does not determine the punishment. Punishment mostly depends on the amount of force used
It is still robbery if force is used even if it is the defendant’s own property
There can be more than one victim in a robbery if more than one person is threatened in the course of the robbery. Robbery is not a the property it is about the person/people potentially being harmed during the taking of the property. However, if the robber doesn’t know the other person is there or the other person doesn’t know there is a robbery, the they are not considered to be a victim. It must be a direct threat.
Victim does not need to be aware or conscious for it to be considered robbery.
Larceny
Common law: Trespassory (without consent); taking (controlling) and; carrying away (just requires movement) of the; personal property; of another (doesn’t have to be actual owner); with intent to steal (deprive permanently)
Embezzlement
Fraudulent; conversion; of property; of another; by one who has been entrusted with that property; with intent to steal
different from larceny in HOW the defendant came in possession of the property (trespassory vs. entrusted) and the possession was converted to defendant’s own use (conversion occurs when property is in defendant’s control)
Most times the defendant’s “position” make the difference between crime being a larceny or embezzlement
False Pretense
false representation; of a past or present material fact (cannot be a future promise); which causes; the victim to pass title (ownership) of property to the defendant; with knowledge that the statement is false; and with intent to defraud the victim
difference from embezzlement and larceny: How the defendant gained possession of property
-larceny: without permission
-embezzlement: entrusted with possession then converted to own use
-false pretenses- ownership is given to defendant voluntarily based on a lie or false statement
If the false statement did not cause victim to give ownership then the statement is not material
Modern law: There can be a promise to perform, but if promise is not performed there must be evidence that the defendant had no intention of performing not just that the promise was not performed
Defendant must know that the representations are false and they must intend to defraud the victim
Criminal Homicide
Two types at common law:
murder and manslaughter
Murder (common law): killing of a human being with malice aforethought
Killing a human being is the actus rea and the malice aforethought is the men rea
malice aforethought: intent to kill; intent to cause serious bodily injury, that results in death; acting with extreme recklessness (knowingly doing something very dangerous and not caring if it results in death -depraved heart or abandoned and malignant heart) ; felony murder (death that is caused in process of committing a felony
Manslaughter (common law): involuntary and voluntary
Involuntary: is the reckless killing of a human being; the defendant must have been aware of the risk of harm and chose to proceed anyway; reveals an disregard for human life (but not so extreme that is demonstrates a depraved heart -that is murder)
Voluntary: Intentional killing, but the killing was a result of a sudden heat of passion brought on by adequate provocation; killer must have acted out of sudden onset of emotion (cannot have taken time to cool off); the extreme emotion must have been brought on by an event that would have provoked an average, reasonable person
Degrees of murder: common law does not have degrees; modern law normally has first degree (sometimes second degree) and felony murder
capitol murder: when the defendant is put to death for an extremely heinous murder
Felony Murder
Common law: if a person committed a felony and someone died as a result; this is true even if the defendant had not intent to cause death of bodily injury; no mens rea is required to commit the murder only commit the felony
Voluntary Manslaughter
Killing done in a sudden heat of passion (under strong emotion usually rage or fear); brought on by adequate provocation (something that would cause a reasonable person to lose control); must be a sudden or immediate response; cannot be mere words; defendant could not have had time to cool off; new and extremely upsetting informational words may be enough; the victim must be the one to provoke the defendant
Self Defense
MPC:
a True defense/ affirmative defense: even if all elements of the crime are proven, defendant should be acquitted if they can prove self defense
not a negation defense: disproving all the elements of the crime
Defendant must reasonably believe that they are in immediate danger of unlawful bodily harm from the attacker; that is it necessary to use force to repel attacker and the only way to avoid the harm is to use force; the force must be proportionate
Immediate; Necessary; Proportionate; Reasonable
Deadly force: can be used if the person believes that the attacker is about to use unlawful deadly force and that the deadly force is the only way to prevent the attacker from using the force
Many jurisdictions require that one must retreat before using deadly force, if they can do so safely (complete safety); retreat is only necessary before using deadly force, not non-deadly force; one is never required to retreat if they are in their home
Cannot claim self defense of the person is the initial aggressor
Exceptions: you abandoned combat or the other person uses excessive force
Judged by reasonable person standards; courts have looked into a person’s history (ex. battered person’s syndrome)
Cannot claim self defense against law enforcement; may use force if they feel the law enforcement is using excessive and unreasonable force
Capital Murder
Know cases: Woodson: the Court held that mandatory death sentences violate the 8th Amendment. The defendant has a right to present mitigating evidence and to try to convince the jury that a sentence less than death is appropriate.
Furman (arbitrary and capricious);
Greg: Bifurcated trials, guilt-innocence phase followed by sentencing phase; Automatic appellate review of every death sentence; Proportionality review by the state supreme court
Justice Stewart in 1972 (capital punishment was abolished): All 9 justices wrote separate opinions but voted 5-4 against the death penalty, saying the current administering of the death penalty was arbitrary and capricious and violated the 8th amendment. He said it was cruel and unusual.
Justices said it will not always be cruel and unusual. Court opened the door to states to rewrite their death penalty statutes to eliminate the problems cited in Furman
GA: Bifurcated trials; automatic appellate review; proportionality review (by supreme court)
8th Amendment: statute must limit and guide the sentencer’s discretion to sentence a defendant to death. Must limit the death penalty to only the worst murders. Defendants must have the right to argue for life sentence
Certain categories of people are exempt from receiving the death penalty:
-Only murder can subject a person to the death penalty
-those who do not intend to kill may not be executed
-Juveniles
-Intellectually disabled
-Mentally incompentent
-actual innocence?
Insanity
Is a defense
a legal term, not a medical term
A true defense and not a negation defense
Insanity defense does not contend that the defendant lacked mens rea for the offense
Must be raised by a a special plea of insanity
if successful, it leads to special verdict: not guilty by reason of insanity; defendant is not set free but released to state hospital and can only be released once the judge decides that the defendant is not a danger to self or to others
Insanity defense is judged by the defendant’s mental condition at the time of the offense (not at the time f the trial); relies on expert testimony; both defense and prosecution will rely expert testimony; prosecution can ask non-expert witness on opinions on the defendant’s mental states
Two test to prove insanity:
-M’Naghten: traditional test; defendant must show that at the offense- he had a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, so that he did not know the nature and quality of the act; or that if he did know it, he did not know what he was doing was wrong
Test is cognitive (what the defendant knows); is about the defendant’s knowledge of right and wrong; all or nothing on whether the defendant knows right or wrong; does not help defendant who know acts are wrong, even if their mental illness causes a compulsion to do the act
-ALI test: MPC test; the defendant lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the wrongfulness of the act or to conform his conduct to the law
Competence
Competence Test:
-Understands the nature of the proceedings
-defendant is able to assist defense counsel in the defense
Mental state at time of the time of trial
Anyone can raise competence
Judge must hold separate hearing to determine competence
If the defendant is found to be competent the trail commences; but, if the defendant is fund to incompetent, the trial may not begin
Finding defendant incompetent does not end the case
state must confine the defendant and treat the their mental condition in an effort to bring about the defendant’s competence
new competency hearing is held
unless and until there is a finding of competence, the defendant may never be put on trial
The charges remain pending
Diminished Capacity
This is a negation defense
If successful, it will reduce the degree of the offense or even make defendant not guilty of any crime
Unlike a not guilty by reason insanity verdict, it does not allow for hospitalization or treatment of defendant
Most states do not permit a diminished capacity defense
