Crim Law Flashcards
Duress is a defense to all crimes except:
Intentional Homicide.
The defense of duress requires the commission of an otherwise criminal act under the threat of imminent infliction of death or great bodily harm.
“Attempt” of a crime requires:
1) Intent to commit a crime (Specific Intent crime), that falls short of completing the crime
2) Overt Act = Common law (traditional) → requires Beyond mere prep. = governed by the “proximity” test: requires act be “dangerously close” to successful completion (E.g., pointing an pulling a gun to the intended victim but it did not fire)
MPC → requires a “substantial step” in a course of conduct planned to commit that strongly corroborates criminal purpose.
A felon planned to break into the rental storage unit next to his that contained valuable electronic equipment. He went to a hardware store to purchase a crowbar. The proprietor sold him the crowbar even though he told her that he needed it to break into someone’s storage unit. After the purchase, the felon went to the storage facility with his friend. The felon told the friend that he had lost the key to his storage unit and did not have time to contact the facility’s manager, so they needed to break into the unit to get his equipment. Because the felon had a bad back, the friend pried open the door with the crowbar and carried the equipment out to the car. A silent alarm was triggered and the pair were apprehended shortly after leaving the facility.
Can the proprietor and the friend be convicted as accomplices to larceny?
No as to both the proprietor and the friend.
Neither the proprietor nor the friend would be convicted as accomplices to larceny. An accomplice is one who (i) with the intent to assist the principal and the intent that the principal commit the substantive offense (ii) actually aids, counsels, or encourages the principal before or during the commission of the crime. Here, the friend is not liable as an accomplice because nothing in the facts suggests that he disbelieved the felon’s claim that it was his own storage unit. Hence, he had no intent to commit larceny, which requires an intent to permanently deprive another of his interest in the property.
To be convicted as an accomplice under the prevailing rule, a person must have acted with the intent to aid or encourage the principal in the commission of the crime charged. Absent a statute, most courts would hold that mere knowledge that a crime may result from the aid provided is insufficient for accomplice liability, at least where the aid involves the sale of ordinary goods at ordinary prices. Here, the proprietor’s sale of the crowbar in the ordinary course of business would not make her liable as an accomplice under the prevailing rule even if she believed that the purchaser was going to use it to break into someone’s storage unit.
A defendant is charged with kidnapping a woman and killing her in a sacrificial ritual. Experts agree that the defendant suffers from schizophrenia.
Under the M’Naghten rule, which of the following, if true, would entitle the defendant to an acquittal based on the insanity defense?
(C) At the time of the crime, the defendant did not understand that his actions were actually occurring because he thought he was just watching them in a movie.
Under the M’Naghten rule, a defendant is entitled to an acquittal if the proof establishes that a disease of the mind caused a defect of reason, such that the defendant lacked the ability at the time of his actions to either know the wrongfulness of his actions or understand the nature and quality of his actions. (C) meets this definition because the defendant did not understand the nature and quality of his actions when they occurred. He thought he was watching a movie, not actually committing the acts.
It’s different from believing that the D is “morally right,” unless he has lost the capacity to recognize that they are regarded by society as wrong.
Burglary requires:
1) Breaking
2) Entering
3) of one’s dwelling
4) at night
5) intent to commit a felony therein
Larceny requires:
1) taking
2) by trespass
3) tangible property
4) of another
5) with the intent to permanently deprive the person of that property
What are the specific intent crimes?
Arson
Attempt
Burglary
Larceny
Premeditated First Degree Murder
False pretense
??
??
??
??
??
When a person takes back their own property or takes property in the honest but mistaken belief that the property belongs to someone who has authorized them to take it, what do they lack?
Intent to steal, which is required for larceny.
With this lack of intent, the person is NOT guilty of larceny
False Pretense requires:
1) Title passes (obtaining title)
2) by false misrepresentation
3) of past or existing fact
4) with intent to defraud
A mistake of fact is a defense of what type of crime, no matter how unreasonable?
Specific Intent crimes
No, because she believed that the painting belonged to her.
왜 intent to defraud가 안되는거지? 어찌됐건 속여서 가지고 온 거 아니었어?
아..? 진짜 내꺼라고 믿어서 가져온 거라서..?
근데 그래도 intent to defraud가 있는게 she falsely represented that she was an agent.. 아이고야 그냥 이거 “she wanted to purchase a painting” 이 부분만 따지는 건가..? 흠
A witness may be compelled to answer questions if granted ________?
adequate immunity from prosecution.
The SCOTUS has held that granting “use and derivative use” immunity is sufficient to extinguish the privilege.
Think of this when Prosecution believes the target witness is NOT guilty of the crime charged on some other defendant.
What does “use and derivative use immunity” guarantee?
It guarantees that the testimony obtained and evidence located by means of the testimony will not be used against the witness.
The other type of immunity that may be given is “transactional” immunity, which guarantees from prosecution for any crimes related to the testimony of the witness.
Is the prosecution obligated to turn over material exculpatory evidence?
Yes, the prosecution has a constitutional obligation to turn over material exculpatory evidence (witness credibility), which includes evidence that would impeach a critical gov’t witness (like, the key witness had a conviction for perjury)
If the failure to disclose that information created a reasonable probability of a different outcome in the trial had the evidence been disclosed, then the appellate court should reverse the conviction.
When the D presents an affirmative defense to one of the elements of a crime, does he have a burden of establishing that?
Yes. The burden shifts from the prosecution, who originally was to prove each element of a charge offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
