Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Criminal Law > Crim Law > Flashcards

Crim Law Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
Civil Procedure 1L flashcards MBE flashcards MPRE flashcards
1
Q

Specific Intent Meaning

A

not conclusively imputed by mere doing of an act, but the manner in which it’s committed provides circumstantial evidence of intent

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

Which crimes are specific intent crimes

A

Solicitation
Conspiracy
Attempt
False Pretenses
Assault
Larceny
Embezzlement
First Degree Murder
Robbery
Burglary
Forgery
(Students Can Always Fake A Laugh for Ridiculous Bar Facts) Student Can Always Fake A Laugh, Even For Ridiculous Bar Facts

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

Which additional defenses do you get w specific intent crimes

A

voluntary intoxication and unreasonable mistake of fact

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

What is a common law malice crime

A

arson and reckless indifference murder (no specific intent defenses)

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

what is the state of mind for common law malice crime

A

reckless indifference - reckless disregard of an obvious high risk that a particular harmful result will occur

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

What is general intent

A

awareness of factors constituting a crime. no additional defenses

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

Strict Liability Crime

A

guilty by mere fact that they committed the act
it’s strict liability if administrative, regulatory, or morality area with no “adverbs” in statute - no intent crime of SL

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

What are the mental states in MPC

A

Subjective
* Purposefully: when conscious objective to engage in conduct causes the result
* Knowingly: aware conduct of particular nature or that certain circumstances exist

  • Recklessly: consciously disregard a substantial and unjustifiable risk - gross deviation from standard of care

Objective
* Negligently: failure to be aware of substantial and unjustifiable risk

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

Transferred Intent means

A

that D is liable when he intended to harm a different victim/object
applies to homicide, battery, and arsons, but NOT attempt

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

Common Law Accomplice Liability

A

Principals in First Degree: engage is act that constitutes the crime
Second Degree: person who aids advises or encourages and are present
Accessories before the fact: assisted or encouraged but were not present
Accessories After the fact: knowledge the other committed felony and assisted in the escape or punishment

Conviction of principal required, but modern law moved away

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

Accomplice Liability: Principals in First Degree

A

engage in act that constitutes the crime

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

Accomplice liability: Second Degree:

A

person who aids advises or encourages and are present

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

Accomplice Liability: Accessories before the fact

A

Assisted or encouraged but were not present

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

Accomplice Liability: Accessories After the fact

A

knowledge the other committed felony and assisted in the escape or punishment

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

MPC Accomplice Liability

A

aboslished distinctions between first and second degree
can all be found guilty of principal offense

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

MPC Accomplice liability - after the fact

A

punishment bears no relationship to principal offense

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

Accomplice Liability Mental State

A

Dual Intent: (1) intent to assist the principal in the commission of crime and (2) intent that principal commits the substantive offense

If sub offense = reckless/negligence, then satisfied if accomplice (1) intended facilitate commission of crime and (2) acted with reckless ness or negligence required

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

Accomplice Liability: Provision of Material

A

mere knowledge crime will result is not enough for accomplice liability, at least where aid given is sale of ordinary goods at ordinary price. Procuring illegal item or selling at higher price, then sufficient stake in venture to satisfy intent

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

Accomplice Liability: Scope of Liability

A

D responsible for:
(1) crimes done or counseled AND
(2) any other crimes committed during course of committing the OG crime that is probable or foreseeable.

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

How to withdraw from Accomplice Liability

A

withdraw from crime BEFORE committed and before crime becomes unstoppable.
If you encouraged, you must repudiate. If assistance by providing material, do everything you can to neutralize that thing. Notifying the police is also sufficient.

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

Conspiracy Elements

A

(1) agreement between 2 or more; (2) intent to enter agreement (3) intent to
achieve objective (4) some overt act required by majority of states (unlike common law) – mere preparation will suffice
AGREEMENT: inferred from joint activity (CL = 2 guilty minds; MPC = unilateral)
COMMON LAW complete upon agreement
MPC needs an over act in furtherance (any little thing)

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

Conspiracy Mental State

A

specific intent crime

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

Terminate Conspiracy

A

acts and statements of co-cons are admissible against conspirator only if they were done or made in furtherance of the crime. conspiracy usually terminates upon completion
Liability: liable for acts of others if (1) acts in furtherance and (2) foreseeable

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

Conspiracy Defenses

A

Withdrawal - not a defense bc complete on agreement/overt act
* CAN use withdrawal as defense to crimes committed in furtherance - effective when D performs an affirmative act that notifies all co-cons of withdrawal
Factual impossibility DOESN’T MATTER

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

Solicitation

A

asking another person to commit a crime with the intent that the person actually commit it. if the other person agrees to do it, the solicitation merges and becomes conspiracy.

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

Attempt

A

Act done w intent to commit crime that falls short of completing it. Need specific intent and an overt act in furtherance.
Elements: to (1) commit a certain act, (2) cause a result, which if achieved (3) would be a crime.

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

Attempt mental state

A

regardless of intent of completed offense, attempt always requires specific intent.

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

Attempt Defenses

A

Abandonment not CL defense, but is an MPC defense if fully voluntary and complete renunciation
Legal Impossibility: D having completed all acts they intended committed no
crime, then not guilty of attempt.

NOT A DEFENSE: Factual Impossibility: the substantive crime can’t be completed bc of some physical or factual condition unknown to D.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Prosecuting an Attempt

A

D charged w only completed crime may be found guilty of completed crime or the attempt, but charged only w attempt will not be convicted of completed crime

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

Common Law Murder

A

unlawful killing human w malice aforethought. If malice aforethought, nothing can lower crime to voluntary manslaughter or something that excuses it

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

Malice Aforethought

A

exists if (1) intent to kill; (2) intent to inflict great bodily injury (beat the shit out of someone); (3)reckless indifference to unjustifiably high risk to human life (depraved heart); intent to commit a felony
note: use of deadly weapon = inference of intent to kill

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

Common Law Felony Murder

A

any death, even accidental, caused in commission of in in attempt to commit a felony is murder. Malice is implied in intent to commit underlying felony

  • Common Law: BARRK (inherently dangerous) and will get you to first degree
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

MPC First Degree Murder

A

Deliberate/Premeditated Murder: D
made decision to kill in cool dispassionate manner and actually reflected on killing, even for a split second. – act w intent or knowledge

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

Can rise to felony murder if:

A

BARRK
Inherent danger
homicide of police officer is automatic first degree if D knows law enforcement and officer on duty (even plain clothes)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

Second Degree Murder (Depraved heart killing)

A

probably second degree murder unless the first degree factors.
depraved heart = reckless disregard to high risk to human life

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

Felony Murder Limits on Liability

A

(1) D Committed or attempted to commit underlying felony
(2) felony distinct from killing itself
(3) death is a foreseeable result
(4) death caused before immediate flight from felony ended (subsequent deaths after temporary safety)
(5) D not liable for felony murder when co felon is killed as result of residtance

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

Competing Theories of Limited Liability for Felony Murder

A
  1. Proximate Cause Theory: felon liable for deaths of innocent victims caused by someone OTHER THAN the co-felon
  2. Agency Theory: felong only liable for killing committed by felon or agent - unless there’s a victim being used as a shield
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
38
Q

Voluntary Manslaughter

A

killing would be murder but for adequate provocation:
* Would rouse sudden and intense passion in mind of ordinary self-control (spouse in bed)
* D was in fact provoked
* Not sufficient time for reasonable person to cool off
* D did not in fact cool off between moment and the killing

reasonable under the circumstances

39
Q

Involuntary Manslaughter

A

Killing committed w criminal negligence under common law or recklessness under MPC

Killing committed during commission of unlawful act not enumerated in felony murder statute requires foreseeability

40
Q

Causation

A

But For
Proximate Cause: natural and probable consequence of the conduct, even if D
didn’t anticipate the precise manner in which the result occurred. Superseding
factors break the chain of proximate causation; An act that hastens inevitable result still the legal cause. Simultaneous acts of 2 or more people may be independently sufficient causes of single result. Victim preexisting weakness even if not foreseeable doesn’t break the chain.

41
Q

Homicide Limitations

A

Year and a Day: death must occur within limit but most states have abolished this

Intervening Acts: shield D if act is coincidence or outside the reasonable sphere of risk - negligent medical care/refusal medical treatment is always foreseeable

42
Q

Battery Elements

A

Unlawful application of force to person resulting in either (1) bodily injury or (2) offensive touching. Can be but doesn’t have to be intentional. Force doesn’t have to be applied directly
Actus Reas: touching
Mens Rea: general intent crime. so 2 additional defense not available here Defense: some recognize consent as defense to simple or certain batteries

43
Q

Aggravated Battery Elements

A

(1) battery w deadly weapon (2) resulting in serious bodily harm (battery child woman or police

44
Q

Assault

A

attempt to commit a battery or the intentional creation (other than by mere words) of reasonable apprehension of imminent bodily harm. If actual touching of victim, it’s battery not assault.

45
Q

Aggravated Assault

A

assault plus (1) use of deadly/danger weapon or (2) w intent to rape, maim, or murder

46
Q

False Imprisonment

A

Unlawful confinement of person without valid consent.
under MPC: must interfere substantially w victim’s liberty

Confinement: not confinement to prevent movement – going where you want to go – as long as alternative route.
Consent invalidated by coercion threats deception or incapacity due to mentally illness, cognitive impairment, or youth

47
Q

Kidnapping

A

unlawful confinement of person that involves (1) some movement of victim or (2) concealment of victim in secret place.

48
Q

Aggravated Kidnapping

A

kidnapping for ransom, purpose of committing other crimes, for offensive purposes, child stealing (incapable of giving valid consent)

49
Q

Statutory Rape

A

under the age of consent = SL, no mistake of age defense

49
Q

Rape

A

unlawful carnal knowledge of woman not by her husband without effective consent
modern: gender neutral sexual assault where slightest penetration is sufficient

50
Q

Larceny

A

the taking or carrying away of tangible personal property of another by trespass w intend to permanently deprive

note:
* asportation - the slightest movement is enough
* possession: of another
* intent to permanently deprive = intent to create substantial risk of loss; intent to borrow or keep as repayment doesn’t count without theory of continuing trespass

51
Q

Larceny: Continuing Trespass

A

wrongfully takes property without intent to permanently deprive, but later decides to keep it - if the original deprivation is not unlawful, then no larceny

52
Q

Larceny of own possession

A

Possible to commit larceny of your own property if (1) another person (i.e. bailee) (2) has a superior right of possession of the property (3) at the time of the taking

53
Q

Embezzlement

A

Fraudulent conversion of personal property by another by person in lawful possession of that property
* in rightful possession
* intent to defraud

54
Q

Defense to Embezzlement

A

intent to restore exact property taken, then not embezzlement; however, if intends to restore similar os substantially identical property it’s embezzlement even if it’s money w identical value

no embezzlement if claim of right to the property

55
Q

False Pretenses

A

Obtaining title to personal property of another by intentional false statement of past or existing fact w intent to defraud. Misrepresentation is required, victim must be deceived by or act in reliance of the misrep.
* Common Law: D misrepresentation must relate to past or present fact. False promises to do w the future (even without present intent to perform) were not sufficient.
* MPC: any false representation suffices including false promise to perform in the future.

56
Q

Larceny by trick

A

victim gives up custody or possession of property; false pretenses = victim gives up title to property.

57
Q

Robbery Elements

A
  • Taking
  • Of personal property
  • From others’ person/vicinity
  • By force or threats of immediate death/injury
  • With intent to permanently deprive
58
Q

Extortion

A

Common Law: corrupt collection of an unlawful fee by an officer under color of office
* MPC: lay terms black mail, consists of obtaining property by means of threats to do harm to expose information. Crime usually complete when threats are made with the intent to obtain property – the property need not be obtained

59
Q

Forgery

A
  • Making/altering/drafting adding or deleting
  • A writing with apparent legal significance (contract, not a painting)
  • So that it is false
  • With intent to defraud, even if no one is actually defrauded
60
Q

Common Law Burglary

A
  • A breaking (Actual = however slight, no break if wide open window, but breaking if open interior door; constructive = fraud/threat
  • And entry (any part of body crosses)
  • Of a dwelling
  • Of another
  • At nighttime
  • With the intent to commit felony in
    the structure (intent must exist at the time of the breaking and the entering)
61
Q

MPC Burglary

A

any building, intent to commit misdemeanor will suffice, no time requirement, no breaking

62
Q

Common Law Arson

A

Malicious burning of the dwelling of another

Malice = no specific intent required for arson; must act w reckless disregard to an obvious risk that the structure would burn

Damage: mere blackening my smoke or discoloration isn’t sufficient, but charring is sufficient

63
Q

Houseburning

A

building had to be house of another – can’t be guilty of burning your own house. Common law misdemeanors of house burning = (1) malicious (2) burning (3) of one’s own dwelling (4) if the structure is situated either in a city or town or so near to other houses at to create a danger to them

64
Q

MPC Arson

A

includes damage cause by explosion, includes commercial structures, cars, trains, etc, and burning your own home

65
Q

Insanity Defenses (all of them)

A

M’Naghten Rule
Rule: D entitled to acquittal if disease of the mind caused defect of reason such that D lacked ability to know wrongfulness of actions or understand the nature and quality of actions. Elements: (1) disease of mind (2) caused a defect of reason(3) such that D lacked ability to know wrongfulness of their actions
Limitations: Delusions or believes that action was morally right or loss of control bc mental illness are not automatically defenses

Durham/New Hampshire Test
Products Test
Rule: entitled to acquittal if crime was the product of mental illness

Irresistible Impulse Test
Self-Control Test
D entitled to acquittal only if, because of
mental illness, they were unable to control their actions or conform their conduct to the law

MPC/A.L.I.
D entitled to acquittal if mental disease or defect and as a result lacked substantial capacity to either appreciate the criminality of their conduct or conform conduct to requirements of the law

66
Q

M’Naghten Insanity Rule & Elements

A

Rule: D entitled to acquittal if disease of the mind caused defect of reason such that D lacked ability to know wrongfulness of actions or understand the nature and quality of actions.

Elements: (1) disease of mind (2) caused a defect of reason(3) such that D lacked ability to know wrongfulness of their actions

67
Q

Limitations to M’Naghten

A

Limitations: Delusions or believes that action was morally right or loss of control bc mental illness are not automatically defenses

68
Q

Durham/New Hampshire

A

products test
Rule: entitlted to acquittal if crime was product of mental illness

69
Q

Irresistible Impulse Test

A

Self Control Test
D entitlted aquittal only if because of
mental illness, they were unable to control their actions or conform their conduct to the law

70
Q

MPC/ALI Insanity Test

A

D entitled to acquittal if mental disease or defect and as a result lacked substantial capacity to either appreciate the criminality of their conduct or conform conduct to requirements of the law

71
Q

Insanity Procedure

A

All Ds presumed sane – D must raise insanity issue. Once raised, D should prove insanityby preponderance. MPC requires prosecution to prove D was sane beyond reasonable doubt. Fed courts require D to prove by clear and convincing evidence
* Can raise at arraignment or later – not guilty doesn’t waive insanity defense for later
* Pretrial psych exam: if D doesn’t raise insanity issue, they may refuse court ordered psych exam to determine competency. If D does raise insanity issue, they may not refuse examination by psych

72
Q

Diminished Capacity

A

D may assert that as a result of mental defect short of insanity, they didn’t have proper mental state for crime. most allow diminished capacity for specific intent crimes, few allow it for general intent

73
Q

Voluntary Intoxication

A

only a defense to specific intent crimes

Result of intentional taking without duress of substance known to be intoxicating. Defense to specific intent crime
* Intent to commit the crime beforehand doesn’t excuse getting drunk then committing crime.
* First degree murder: Merely reduces to next level of crime (second degree murder)
* Addicts are always considered to be voluntarily intoxicated – addiction compelling you to take drugs doesn’t count

74
Q

Involuntary Intoxication

A
  • Intoxication resulting from taking substance without knowledge of its nature,
    under duress, or pursuant to medical advice while unaware of intoxicating effect
  • Can be a defense to all crimes (just like insanity)
    Note: Continuous excessive drinking or drug use may bring on actual insanity
75
Q

Common Law Infancy

A
  • Under 7: no liability for acts committed by child under 7
  • Ages 7-14: rebuttable presumption child unable to understand wrongfulness
  • Age 14 and Older: treated as an adult
76
Q

MPC Infancy

A

No child convicted of crime until stated age (13 or 14) is reached, but children can be found delinquent in juvie of family court

77
Q

Nondeadly Force (generally)

A

Person without fault may use such force as person reasonably believes is necessary to protect themselves from imminent use of unlawful force.

No duty to retreat

78
Q

Deadly Force

A

Person may use deadly force in self-defense if person:
* Is without fault
* Is confronted by unlawful force
* Reasonably believes they are threatened with imminent death or great bodily harm

79
Q

Duty to Retreat

A

Deadly Force: No duty to retreat (majority); minority requires retreat if victim can safely do so UNLESS (1) attack in victim home (2) making lawful arrest (3) assailant in process of robbing

Non deadly: no duty to retreat

80
Q

Right of Aggressor’s to use self defense

A

if aggressor in confrontation, they may use force in defense only if:
* Effective withdrawal from confrontation or communication to the other of their
desire to withdraw
* Victim of initial aggression suddenly escalates the minor fight into deadly
OR
altercation AND initial aggressor has no chance to withdraw

81
Q

Defense of Others

A

right to defend others if D reasonably believes person has right to use force in own defense. Reasonable appearance of right to use force is enough – no need for special relationship
* Minority view: special familial relationship to come to the aid

82
Q

Defense of a Dwelling

A

nondeadly force to the extent that reasonably believe such conduct is necessary to terminate another’s unlawful entry or attack upon dwelling. Deadly force only if to prevent violent entry AND when person reasonably believes that use of force necessary to prevent personal attack on themselves in the dwelling or to prevent entry to commit felony in the dwelling
* Spring Guns: not allowed, you have to be home when this happens

83
Q

Defense of Other Property

A

Can never use deadly force in defense of property.

Reasonable nondeadly force may be used to defend property in one’s possession from what they reasonably believe is an (1) imminent (2) unlawful (3) interference. force not allowed if a request to desist or refrain would suffice.
* Person may use force to regain property wrongfully taken only if they are in immediate pursuit of the taker

84
Q

Excuse of Duress

A

Defense to crimes other than homicide that D reasonably believed another person would imminently inflict death or great bodily harm upon them or member of family or third person.

Traditionally, threat to property not sufficient.

MPC does allow duress assuming value of property outweighs the harm done to society by commission of the crime.

85
Q

Excuse of Necessity

A

Defense that D reasonably believed commission of crime was necessary to avoid imminent and greater injury to society (objective – good faith belief not sufficient)
* Common Law: has to come from natural forces (tornado, earthquake, fire, etc…)
* MPC: abandoned that

86
Q

Limitations to Excuse of Necessity

A

Limitations: (1) causing the death of another; (2) when D is at fault for creating the situation requiring that they choose between two evils
Duress always involves a human threat

87
Q

Mistake or Ignorance of Fact

A

Relevant to crim liability ONLY IF D lacked state of mind required for crime. It’s irrelevant if crime is strict liability
* Specific intent crime – mistake can be unreasonable
* Any other state of mind – mistake must be reasonable

Difference from factual impossibility: mistake of fact is never having the intent; factual impossibility you do have the intent

88
Q

Mistake of Ignorance of Law

A

Not a defense if D believed activity wouldn’t be a crime, even if they thought it was reasonable and even if based on advice from attorney

89
Q

Entrapment

A

Intent to commit crime originated with law enforcement officers, not D and D not predisposed to commit crime prior to contact.
Merely providing opportunity for predisposed person to commit crime isn’t entrapment

90
Q

Perjury

A

The intentional taking of a false oath (lying) in regard to a material matter (one that might affect the outcome of a proceeding) in a judicial proceeding
* Subordination of Perjury: procuring or inducing another to commit the perjury

91
Q

Bribery

A

Common Law: corrupt payment or receipt of value for an official action

MPC: extended to nonpublic officials and includes the offering of a bribe or the taking of
the bribe to constitute the crime

92
Q

Compounding of a Crime

A

Agreeing for consideration not to prosecute another for a felony or agreement to conceal the commission of felony or the whereabouts of the felony
MPC: definition refers to any crime including misdemeanor

93
Q

Misprison of a Felony

A

Common Law: the failure to disclose knowledge of the commission of a felony or to prevent commission of the felony
MPC: misprision is no longer a crime; if it remains a crime it requires an affirmative action in aid of felony

Criminal Law (3 decks)

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