Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

LS > crim law > Flashcards

crim law Flashcards

1
Q

why do we punish

A

utilitarianism, retributivism

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

utilitarianism

A

Was to maximize social welfare: Punishing deters

Deters: punishment sents message to society as a whole to keep from others doing it

Specific deterrance: deter the particular person from doing that crime again

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Retributivism

A

Moral theory: punish to the extent there is wrongdoing: punish because it is morally right

Proportionality: evil of the crime should match what was done

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

conduct crime

A

Example: in larceny, the conduct is taking and carrying away
Voluntary act/ failure to act (omission)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

result crime

A

Prohibited result: For example: in murder death is result

Will mostly only be in homicide for us

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Elements of Criminal Liability

A

Legality
Actus Reas
Mens Rea
Concurrence
Causation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Transferred Intent

A

Intent from the intended victim transfers to the actual victim

If the intended target is killed as well as an unintended target, courts are split
- Some say intent continues to everyone who is unintentionally killed
- Some say intent stops at the person who was intended to be killed

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

actus reas

A

actually physical: physical element of crime: prohibited conduct or prohibited result

attendant circumstances:
- facts that have to attach for a crime to take place

Voluntary act: cannot be involuntary

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Mistake of Fact

A

Purpose and Knowledge are negated by any honest mistake of fact
- Reasonable or unreasonable

3 exceptions
1: reasonable reliance that is later declared erroneous
2: if ignorance negates mens rea
3: lacks fair notice

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

actus reas element

A

omissions, results, and attendant circumstances

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

mens rea

A

mental state
- internal elements of crimes

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

MPC Mens rea: in order

A

Purposefully: Specific Intent

Knowingly: General intent

Recklessly: Acting in gross deviation from the conduct that a law-abiding person would engage in by :consciously disregarding a substantial and unjustifiable risk

Negligence: Gross deviation from the standard of care of a reasonable person and: failing to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Strict liability in Mens Rea

A

generally rejected by MPC since it doesn’t satisfy utilitarianism or retrubutivism

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Common law: mental states

A

negligently: same as MPC

Knowingly of purpose (intentional): acted intentionally if you acted purposefully or knowingly

Maliciously: either intentionally or recklessly

Willfully: Differs in jurisdiction according to crimes

Recklessly: same as MPC

Negligence

Strict liability: Some crimes just need actus reas and no mental state is required
: Common law strongly disfavors this since no guilty mind they lack blameworthiness, and there is no deterrence value in punishing

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Specific Intent

A

Ex: larceny is specific intent to deprive permanently

Roughly equals purpose

Elements specify a specific intent

Requires subjective awareness of a circumstance

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Ommission

A

Violates a legal duty: does not give rise to criminal conduct unless they disregard a duty (ex: from contracts, relationships, etc)

Situations where failure to act may constitute a breach of legal duty
1. where a statute imposes a duty to care for another
2. where one stands ina certain relationship w another: ex parent
3. Where one has assumed a contractual duty to care for another
4. Where one has voluntarily assumed the care of another and so secluded the helpless person as to prevent others from rendering aid
5. One’s voluntary actions place another in peril: The creation of Peril
6.Parents are responsible for their children’s actions

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

General Intent

A

Roughly equals knowledge and stuff below (recklessness, negligence)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Concurrence of Actus Reus and Mens Rea

A

Men rea must coinside with actus reus of crime for it to be criminal: Fagan case

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Inchoate crimes

A

all specific intent so cant be recklessness of negligence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Solicitation

A

actus reus: asking and encouraging someone to commit a crime

Mens rea: intent that the person will commit the crime

Rules:
- crime is complete once the words are spoken
- merger
- smaller crime merges into the
larger crime
- if you are an accomplice for
target crime

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Conspiracy: actus reas

A

3 recs:
1. aggrement to commit a crime of series of crime:
2. Intent to crime: make agreements to accomplish the target crimes
3. an overt act in furtherance of the crime

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Conspiracy: mens rea

A

Intent to do:
- purpose or knowledge
- Not a big deal over which jurisdiction purpose v. knowledge
- knowledge can lead to purpose

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Conspiracy: Impossibility

A

agreeing to a crime that is impossible to commit

are you liable as a co-conspirator:
-Yes: impossibility is not a defense
-You are dangerous and morally blameworthy whether or not it is possible

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Conspiracy: Special Liability Rules

A

Distinct crime: can be liable for both distinctly: doesn’t merge like solicitation

Pinkerton: usually rejected for MPC

Abandonment:
- Some jurisdictions will let you cut off furtherance crimes that have not been committed is you communicate your withdrawal to all co-conspirators
- Some require you to thwart conspirators from crime

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

attempt: mens rea

A

attempt to commit a crime

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

attempt: actus reas

A

2 tests:
Physical proximity: how close are you

Dangerous proximity: how dangerously close are you: depends on how dangerous it is

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

attempt: common law

A

closeness test: dangerous close and proximate close

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Attempt: MPC

A

substantial step test: have you taken substantial test to corroborate the criminal offense

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

attempt: abandonment

A

common law: no abandonment

modern jurisdiction: some allow abandonment to prompt deterrence: HAS TO BE COMPLETE AND VOLUNTARY RELINQUISH CRIME

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Battery: actus reus

A

unwanted touching of another human being: entry is not required

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

battery mens rea

A

negligence or higher: greater or equal to negligence

common law general: any state of mind will satisfy the men’s rea for battery

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

battery: aggravated battery

A

Typically, something bad in the sense that you used a deadly or dangerous weapon, inflicted serious bodily injury, or battery upon a child or police

29
Q

Assault: actus reas

A
  1. Attempted battery
    : You attempt to touch someone in an unwanted manner
  2. Putting someone in reasonable fear and reasonable apprehension of an imminent batter
    : So it may not be intent to touch but intent to cause fear of battery
30
Q

assault: mens rea

A

Specific intent crime:

Actus reas 1
- Intent is that you intend to commit a battery and you attempted to commit a battery

Actus reas 2
- You intended to put someone in reasonable fear of an imminent battery even if its not your intent to touch them

31
Q

rape: actus reus

A

sexual intercourse:
- penetration, by force, threat of force without consent, sexual intercourse by force or threat of force without consent

Common law:
- need force or threat of force

32
Q

Rape: mens rea

A

Negligence or higher: regarding element of consent
:Reasonable mistake for consent, then there is no rape

33
Q

Rape: strict liability

A

Statutory rape
actus reus
- determined by states some is 14,
16, 18

mens rea: stautory rape
- None since strict liability

34
Q

Rape: resistance: consent

A

resistance
:Need resistance but not utmost resistance: depends on jurisdictions

2 kinds of consent
:attitudinal: like men’s rea
: performative: actions

RusK: no consent in this case: MAJORITY RULE
1. Intercorce
2. Force
3. w/o consent

MTS: no consent in this case: TREND RULE
1. Intercorce
2. Force

35
Q

Murder: actus reas

A

unlawful killing of another human being

36
Q

Murder: mens rea

A

Unlawful killing with malice forethought

4 conditions:
- Intent to kill
- intent to inflict bodily injury
- extreme recklessness to human life
- felony murder

37
Q

Murder: extreme recklessness to human life

A

Not ordinary criminal recklessness: extreem recklessness

MPC describes as extreme indifference to human life

38
Q

Murder: felony murder

A

actus reas: killing during a felony

mens rea: is none: strict liability

Killing: by anyone doesn’t have to be by the perpetrator of the crime
- Limited now to only the perpetrators and the accomplice

During: not just during crime but getting there and leaving as well
- Causation (to limit)
- 1. but for: if not this but for
- 2. proximate cause: closeness

39
Q

Limitations to felony murder

A

Inherently dangerous:
- Ex: Robbery, rape, burglary, felonious escape, arson, kidnapping
Felony in the abstract is dangerous

Merger doctrine:
- Non-mergeable: Independent
Ex: hitting someone with a gun would not be felony murder

40
Q

murder degrees : 1st degree

A

Two kinds

  1. Mens rea: premeditation and deliberation
    : Mean you planned and waited in advance
  2. Felony murder
    :Death or life without parole
    Must set out in statutes before the felonies that would lead to felony murder
    Rape, robbery, arson, kidnapping
41
Q

Murder 2nd degree

A

Every other murder that is not 1st-degree

All intentional killings without premeditation and deliberation

Felony murders with felonies not set up by the specific murders

42
Q

Manslaughter

A

voluntary:
- Heat of passion
- Sudden and intense reaction with no cooling off time: provocation good enough that you lose your temper and kill someone
- Less than murder in grading and punishment

Involuntary
- Mens rea: killing negligently or recklessly
- Fall below malicious mindset for killing
- Analog killing: misdemeanor manslaughter
- Commit a misdemeanor and there is a proximate cause between misdemeanor and death

43
Q

self defence: elements

A

Non deadly: use if you have a reasonable believe in necessity to use non deadly force for unlawful use
Deadly forse: need to protect against imminent unlawful deadly force/serious bodily injury

44
Q

Self defense: retreat

A

non deadly: dont need to retreat

deadly:
- majority: don’t necessarily need to retreat
- minority: need to retreat: don’t have to under certain circumstances
- Castle doctrine: defend home
-robbed or raped deadly force can be used

45
Q

self defence: aggressor

A

If they withdraw and the defender keeps going they switch roles

If the defendant escalates to deadly force than the aggressor becomes the victim

46
Q

self-defence: imperfect self defense

A

Murder would be brought down to manslaughter
- Ex: victi=m should retreat but choses not to and shots and kills aggressor:
- Liable for manslaughter not murder

47
Q

denfense of others

A

Can use as much force to defend third party (even deadly force) as they would use to defend themselves

Some say they can only use the amount of force the third party could use

48
Q

intoxication defense

A

excuse defenses: dont justify but excuse conduct to say they arent culpable

49
Q

intoxication: voluntary

A

Not a defense to strict liability crimes

Only excuses specific intent crimes
- If crimes need specific intent, then it is a defense otherwise, you can still be held for other crimes

Murder
- Defense to 1st-degree murder but not to 2nd-degree murder
- No 1st degree since you cannot premeditate and form intent

50
Q

necessity

A

choice of evils: justification defense: society wants you to commit a crime since it commits a lesser of two evils

51
Q

necessity: elements

A

Reasonable belief that there is a need to break the law to cause less harm to society

Must derive from natural forces
- Ex: running from a tornado and breaking into a store

Cant use as a defense to homicides

52
Q

Necessity: Homicide law

A

Killing someone saves lives of a bunch of people

Can NEVER take a life based on necessity defense
- No clear answer

53
Q

Duress

A

Excuse defense: well they are mitigating the circumstance even though you committed the crime

54
Q

Duress: Elements

A

Reasonable belief you are under threat by another person of imminent threat or bodily harm
- Can be a threat to family or someone close to you

Did not bring about the harm

58
Q

Case: Decina

A

illustrating the claim that courts sometimes might use the device of “time-framing” to find or not find an actus reus or some other element of the offense

59
Q

Case: Barber

A

illustrating that seemingly affirmative acts are sometimes treated as failures to act, or omissions

Case where two doctors removed feeding tubes and life support (with the consent of family) the patient died and the doctors are being sued for murder

Ultimately not found liable

They can’t be held liable unless they have a legal duty to act
- If treatment is ineffective/the victim’s family consents

Pulling Plug (act) = manually withholding treatment (failure to act)
-act = failure to act

Cant hold the doctors liable

60
Q

Case: Prince

A

the Majority opinion uses the moral wrong doctrine; the Dissent advocates the legal wrong doctrine

Upheld conviction even though he was mistaken on her age and it was reasonable for him to have made this mistake

There is no mens rea in her age and that falls under strict liability:
- Even though consent and possession are under knowledge age is not
- Mens rea in those elements (Consent and Possession) he made a mistake since age is strict liability he would still be held

It is moral wrong so the court disregards the mistake

Age is strict liability because of the moral wrong doctrine

61
Q

Case: Fagan

A

illustrating that what seems to be a failure to act, or omission, is sometimes treated as an affirmative act; also, the court advances the notion of a continuing act

Actus rea came first, then mens rea

After actus rea, there was some mens rea, so the overlap was satisfied

Went on the officer’s foot with the car’s tire (unknowingly: actus rea), and when the officer told him to get off, he didn’t (mens rea)
- Argued it wasnt assault but an omission since he just didn’t act, and that cant be an assault: didn’t act in removing the car tire off the officer’s foot

62
Q

Case: M.T.S

A

the force inherent in the act of sexual intercourse (intrinsic force) satisfies the force requirement for rape; also, the consent of the victim must be established by either affirmative words or conduct

Unauthorized touching
- Is battery so any non consentual intercourse is force: the states conseption

Follows the courts definition

Must show consent through affirmative words and actions

63
Q

Case: Goetz

A

self-defense is assessed by whether the defendant’s conduct or beliefs were that of a reasonable person in the defendant’s “situation”

64
Q

Case: Norman

A

imminence requirement for self-defense

65
Q

Case: Patterson

A

the burden of persuasion for a defense may constitutionally be allocated to the defendant if the defense does NOT directly and clearly negate an element of the offense charged

66
Q

3 fetures of punishment

A

loss of liberty, loss of life, stigma

67
Q

Rehabilitation: 2 forms

A

One is in response to punishment

One is done without going through punishment: Rehabilitation with no punishment

68
Q

3 principles for min amount of punishment

A
  1. the harm of the punishment must exceed the profit of the offense
  2. Proportionality: greater offense = greater punishment
  3. There must be increasingly severe punishment at each successive stage of a criminal course of conduct: ex more punish for murder than attempted murder
69
Q

Legality Principle

A

for a defendant to be prosecuted and punished the act has to be previously criminalized

Ex post facto: cant retroactively punish

70
Q

Malum in se

A

wrong in and of itself

71
Q

malum prohibitum

A

wrong only because the legislature has said it is wrong

72
Q

Legality principle 3 points

A
  1. statue must not be too big
  2. statue can not give police too much discretion
  3. rule of strict construction: rule of lenity: statute is ambiguous statue will be resolved in favor of the defendant
73
Q

voluntary act

A

willed bodily movement

People v. Decina
- While operating the vehicle he had a seizure and ran over 4 people who died
- Can he be held liable?
- Act to drive the car was voluntary so under the model penal code he could be held
- Under Martin he involuntary had a seizure so since it wasn’t all voluntary he cannot be held

74
Q

Fraud in de Factum: in rape

A

Fraud as to the nature of the act that the victim is defrauded into committing

75
Q

Fraud in the inducement

A

The victim is entire of the nature of the act they are engaging in or performing but have been decided as to the reason or motive or purpose for engaging in that act

76
Q

MPC: feolnies that show extreme indifference: 6

A
  1. Murder
  2. Arson
  3. Rape
  4. Kidnapping
    5: Burgelary
    6: Felonious Escape
77
Q

Independent Purpose Test

A

If the defendant committed an underlying felony for a different reason than the reason for committing the injury that caused the death, then it is independent and does not merge, so the defendant is liable for felony murder

If defendant committed for the same reason as the underlying act to commit murder, than it does merge, and it is not independent so there can be no felony murder liability

78
Q

Test for merger

A

1: Asses the elements of the felony
2: If the elements have any assultive aspect they are non independant felonies and they merge so no felony murder liability
3: if they have independant they to not merge so they have felony murder liability

LS (7 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions