Crim Law

Question 1

Common-Law Murder

Answer 1

At common law, murder is the unlawful killing of a human being committed with malice aforethought.

Malice aforethought exists if the defendant acts with any of the following mental states: (1) intent to kill, (2) intent to inflict great bodily injury, (3) reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life, or (4) intent to commit a felony.

Question 2

Malice Aforethought: Intent to Kill

Answer 2

To be found guilty, D’s conduct must be the legal cause of V’s death and D must have intended to kill V.

Question 3

Malice Aforethought: Intent to Inflict Great Bodily Injury

Answer 3

To be found guilty, D must only possess the requisite intent to inflict great bodily harm upon V.

Question 4

Malice Aforethought: Reckless Indifference to an Unjustifiably High Risk to Human Life (Depraved Heart Murder)

Answer 4

To be found guilty, D must demonstrate a reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life or malignant and depraved heart.

Question 5

Malice Aforethought: Intent to Commit a Felony

Answer 5

Under the FMR, D can be found guilty for the unintended and foreseeable killing that is proximately caused by or during the commission or attempted commission of an inherently dangerous felony.

Traditionally, burglary, arson, rape, robbery, and kidnapping are considered to be inherently dangerous felonies. Here, D is guilty of the underlying felony of _______, thus assuming the other elements of FMR are satisfied, D will be found guilty of felony murder.

Question 6

Felony Murder Rule: “foreseeable killing”

Answer 6

The killing of V was foreseeable because…

Question 7

Felony Murder Rule: “proximately caused”

Answer 7

In addition, V’s killing was proximately caused by the [insert inherently dangerous felony] because…

Question 8

Felony Murder Rule Exception

Answer 8

If a co-felon is killed by a victim or a police officer during the commission of the felony, then the defendant is generally not guilty of felony murder. However, some jurisdictions allow the defendant to be charged with felony murder where the police kill a co-felon.

Question 9

First-Degree Murder

Answer 9

First degree murder is a statutorily created category of murder that is premeditated and deliberate, and D must have the specific intent to kill V. Oftentimes, a jurisdiction will also characterized FMR as a first degree offense.

Question 10

First-Degree Murder: Premeditated

Answer 10

A murder is premeditated if the defendant had enough time to reflect on the idea of, or plan the killing.

Question 11

First-Degree Murder: Deliberate

Answer 11

Deliberate means the defendant made the decision to kill in a cool and dispassionate manner.

Question 12

Voluntary Manslaughter

Answer 12

In order for D to be found guilty of the lesser offense of voluntary manslaughter, there must be adequate provocation arousing a sudden and intense passion in the mind of an ordinary person. D must: 1) suffer a loss of control; 2) not have sufficient time to cool off; and 3) must in fact not have regained his self control before the killing of V. (includes serious battery, threat of deadly force, not usually words)

Question 13

Involuntary Manslaughter

Answer 13

To be found guilty of involuntary manslaughter, D must: 1) have been criminally negligent; or 2) he must have committed an unlawful act.

Question 14

Involuntary Manslaughter: Criminal Negligence

Answer 14

A D is guilty of involuntary manslaughter if he acts with criminal negligence, i.e., a reckless action putting another at significant risk of injury or death.

Question 15

Involuntary Manslaughter: Unlawful Act

Answer 15

A D who is guilty of a felony that is not one of the traditionally held inherently dangerous felonies resulting in Felony Murder, or in a misdemeanor that results in death is guilty of involuntary manslaughter.

Question 16

Defenses to Murder

Answer 16

Insanity
Intoxication
Mistake of Fact
Self-Defense
Defense of Others or Property
Duress
Necessity
Consent
Entrapment

Question 17

Self Defense

Answer 17

One who is not the aggressor is justified in using reasonable force against another person toe prevent immediate unlawful harm to himself. Deadly force may be justified in self-defense only when it is reasonably necessary to prevent death or serious injury, to prevent the commission of a serious felony, or, in some cases, to apprehend a fleeing felon.

An initial aggressor who acts with non-deadly force and is met with deadly force may still assert the claim of self-defense.

Question 18

Imperfect Self Defense

Answer 18

Imperfect self-defense occurs when the person claiming self-defense unjustifiably kills the attacker, and it will reduce the charge from murder to voluntary manslaughter.

Question 19

Burglary

Answer 19

Burglary is the: 1) breaking; and 2) entering; 3) of the dwelling of another; 4) at nighttime; 5) with the specific intent to commit a felony therein.

Question 20

Robbery

Answer 20

Robbery is: 1) larceny; 2) by force or intimidation; 3) when the taking of property from the victim or in his presence.

[Consider assault or battery]

Question 21

Larceny

Answer 21

Larceny is the trespassory taking and carrying away of the personal property of another (without his consent) with the specific intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property at the time of the taking.

Question 22

Larceny by Trick

Answer 22

Larceny by trick is the gaining of possession (less than full title) of personal property of another where their consent is induced by fraud (knowing misrepresentation of material fact with the intent of reliance, which actually induced the reliance).

Question 23

Extortion

Answer 23

At common law, extortion was the unlawful taking of money by a government officer. Most jurisdictions have enacted statutes that more broadly define extortion as the taking of money or property from another by threat.

Question 24

Receiving Stolen Property

Answer 24

Receiving stolen property is a statutory crime that requires receiving control of stolen property knowing that the property is stolen with the intent to permanently deprive the true owner of the property.

Question 25

Forgery

Answer 25

Forgery is the fraudulent making of a false writing with apparent legal significance with the intent to defraud.

Question 26

False Pretenses

Answer 26

False pretenses is the crime of obtaining: 1) title to property; 2) of another; 3) through reliance of that person; 4) on a known false representation of past or present fact; 5) with intent to defraud.

Question 27

Embezzlement

Answer 27

Embezzlement is: 1) fraudulent; 2) conversion; 3) of the property; 4) of another; 5) by a person who is in lawful possession of the property.

Question 28

Arson

Answer 28

Arson is the malicious burning of the dwelling of another.

Malicious means that the defendant must have acted with intent or reckless disregard for the high risk of harm.

Question 29

Battery

Answer 29

Battery is the unlawful application of force to another person that causes bodily harm or constitutes an offensive touching.

Question 30

Assault

Answer 30

Assault can be either: 1) the attempt to commit a battery or; 2) the intentional placing of another in apprehension of imminent bodily harm.

Question 31

Kidnapping

Answer 31

Kidnapping is the unlawful confinement of another agains tat person’s will coupled with either movement or hiding the person.

Question 32

False Imprisonment

Answer 32

False Imprisonment is the unlawful confinement of another person without their consent.

Question 33

Rape

Answer 33

At common law, rape is the unlawful sexual intercourse with a female against her will by force or threat of immediate force.

Most modern statutes do not require force. However, if the defendant has a reasonable belief that lack of resistance was consent, then it negates the intent requirement.

Question 34

Conspiracy

Answer 34

Conspiracy is an agreement between two or more people to accomplish an unlawful purpose plus specific intent to agree to commit the criminal objective. There must also be a legal or illegal overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.

Question 35

Conspiracy: Pinkerton Rule

Answer 35

Under the Pinkerton Rule, a conspirator is liable for both the conspiracy and co-conspirators’ substantive crimes in furtherance of the conspiracy.

Question 36

Conspiracy: Withdrawal

Answer 36

In order to withdraw from a conspiracy under the majority rule, the conspirator must withdraw before the commission of an overt act and they must give notice to co-conspirators to give timely notice to the police.

Under the MPC, withdrawal is possible even after an overt act only if timely notification allows the police to thwart the success of the conspiracy.

Question 37

Accomplice Liability

Answer 37

A principal is the person whose acts or omissions are the actus reus of the crome, or, in other words, is the perpetrator of the crime.

A person is liable as an accomplice if he: 1) aids or abets a principal prior to or during the crime; 2) with the intent for a crime to be committed. The accomplice is liable for the crime itself and all natural and probable consequences of the crime.

Question 38

Accomplice Liability: Withdrawal

Answer 38

To withdraw from accomplice liability, the accomplice must: 1) repudiate prior to aiding in the commission of a crime: 2) countermand any prior assistance or timely notify the legal authorities; 3) and they must do so before the chain of events are set into motion and are unstoppable.

Question 39

Accessory After the Fact

Answer 39

An accessory after-the-fact is one who aids a felon to avoid apprehension after the felony is committed. To be guilty, the person must know the felony was committed. Accessories after the fact are only liable for the separate crime, not the underlying crime.

Question 40

Solicitation

Answer 40

Solicitation is the enticing, encouraging, or advising of another person to commit a crime with the intent that the other person commits.

Question 41

Attempted Crime

Answer 41

An attempt requires a substantial step toward the commission of a crime, coupled with the specific intent to commit the crime.

Question 42

Attempted Crime: Substantial Step

Answer 42

A subjective test, called the “substantial step” test, is applied to determine whether an attempt has occurred. Under this test, conduct does not constitute a substantial step if it is in mere preparation; the act must be conduct that tends to effect the commission of a crime.

Any of the following preparatory acts may constitute a substantial step of they corroborate the defendant’s criminal purpose: lying in wait, searching for, or following the intended victim; unlawful entry to the place contemplated for the commission of the crime; enticing the intended victim to go to such place; possession of materials specifically designed for committing the crime; or possession of materials to be used in the commission of the crime at or near the place of commission.

Question 43

Attempted Crime: “Dangerous Proximity” Test

Answer 43

Some states continue to apply the traditional “dangerous proximity” test. Under this test, an attempt does not occur until the defendant’s acts result in a dangerous proximity to completion of the crime.

Question 44

General Intent Defenses

Answer 44

Involuntary intoxication, reasonable mistake

NOT Voluntary intoxication or unreasonable mistake

Question 45

Specific Intent Defenses

Answer 45

Involuntary intoxication, reasonable mistake

Voluntary intoxication and unreasonable mistake if it negates specific intent.

Question 46

Malice Murder Defenses

Answer 46

Involuntary intoxication, reasonable mistake.

Imperfect self defense (voluntary manslaughter)

NOT voluntary intoxication

Question 47

Malice Arson Defense

Answer 47

Involuntary intoxication, reasonable mistake

NOT voluntary intoxication or unreasonable mistake

Question 48

Insanity

Answer 48

There are four different tests in deciding whether insanity is a valid defense: the M’Naghten Test, the Irresistible Impulse test, the Durham “but-for” test, and the Model Penal Code test.

Question 49

Insanity: M’Naghten Test

Answer 49

Under the M’Naghten test, the defendant must not have known: 1) the nature or quality of the act; or 2) the wrongfulness of the act because of a defect due to mental disease. (“right from wrong” test)

Question 50

Insanity: Irresistible Impulse test

Answer 50

Under the Irresistible Impulse test, the defendant must have lacked capacity for self-control and free choice due to a mental disease or defect.

Question 51

Insanity: Durham Test

Answer 51

Under the Durham “but-for” test, the defendant’s unlawful act must have been a product of the defendant’s mental disease or defect - but-for the mental defect, the defendant would not have committed the unlawful act.

Question 52

Insanity: Model Penal Code

Answer 52

Under the Model Penal Code, at the time the defendant committed the unlawful act, the defendant must have: 1) lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of the act; or 2) could not conform his conduct accordingly as a result of the mental illness.