Crim Law Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

Conspiracy

A

Conspiracy is a specific-intent crime. Consequently, even though the offense of supplying alcoholic beverages to persons under the age of 21 is a strict-liability offense, conspiracy to commit this offense is a specific-intent crime. Because the owner did not have the specific intent to supply alcoholic beverages to individuals under the age of 21, the owner cannot properly be charged with conspiracy.

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

purposefully inflamed person to kill another

A

Common-law murder is the unlawful killing of another human being committed with malice aforethought. When the store clerk purposefully inflamed his girlfriend in an effort to have her kill the new owner, his reckless indifference to the value of human life (depraved heart) resulted in his girlfriend’s death. The clerk knew that the store was frequented by police officers but nonetheless enticed his girlfriend to go to the store with a large machete to kill the new owner. As a result, he will likely be convicted of the girlfriend’s murder.

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

<p>seller discovered doc was forgery. sold anyway. buyer appraised as valid. Is false pretenses?</p>

A

<p>No. Did not rely on seller, relied on own appraiser.

False pretenses requires (i) obtaining title to the property (ii) of another person (iii) through the reliance of that person (iv) on a known false representation of a material past or present fact, and (v) the representation is made with the intent to defraud.</p>

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

<p>Can the woman testify as to the statements she alleges SHE HEARD from the masked assailant made during the robbery?</p>

A

<p>A voice can be identified by any person who has heard the voice at any time. Consequently, the fact that the woman was not aware of the speaker’s identity at the time she heard the statements does not prevent her from identifying the man as their speaker at trial.</p>

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

<p>challenge a facially valid warrant</p>

A

<p>A defendant can successfully challenge a facially valid warrant only when the defendant can establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that: (i) the affidavit contained false statements that were made by the affiant knowingly, intentionally, or with a reckless disregard for their truth; and (ii) the false statements were necessary to the finding of probable cause.</p>

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

loan shark shattered knees; victim died from complications.

guilty of attempted murder?

A

Although murder is a malice crime that can be satisfied by an intent to do serious bodily harm, attempted murder is a specific-intent crime. Here, the loan shark had the intent to do serious bodily harm to the borrower by subjecting him to a shattered kneecap. However, the loan shark did not possess the intent to kill the borrower. Therefore, even though the loan shark took a substantial step towards the murder of the borrower in directing his henchman to shatter the borrower’s kneecaps, the loan shark is likely not guilty of attempted murder because attempt requires specific intent.

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

<p>when can past criminal activity be presented</p>

A

<p>A criminal defendant has no obligation to testify under his right against self-incrimination. If he does, however, he is subject to cross-examination and impeachment, which can include questions about his past crimes, under certain circumstances. If more than 10 years have elapsed since the conviction or release from confinement, whichever is later, a conviction is admissible only if the probative value of the conviction substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect.</p>

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

M’Naghten test

A

a defendant is not guilty if he does not know the nature, quality, or wrongfulness of his act because of his mental disease

e.g. guilty of “defendant appreciated the wrongfulness of his actions.”

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

hitting his co-worker over the head with a bottle

A

Malice aforethought includes the intent to inflict serious bodily injury.

therefore, element of murder

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

larceny

A

i) Trespassory;
ii) Taking and;
iii) Carrying away;
iv) Of the personal property;
v) Of another;
vi) With the intent to permanently deprive that person of the property (i.e., intent to steal).

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

larceny by trick

A

i) Larceny
ii) Accomplished by fraud or deceit
iii) THAT RESULTS IN the conversion of the property of another.

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

felony murder

A

If a murder is committed during the perpetration of an enumerated felony, then it may be first-degree murder. The most commonly enumerated felonies are Burglary, Arson, Rape, Robbery, and Kidnapping. [Mnemonic: BARRK].

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

is larceny intent crime?

A

Larceny is a specific-intent crime. The intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property must be present at the time of the taking.

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

false pretenses

A

i) Obtaining title to the property (including money);
ii) Of another person;
iii) Through the reliance of that person;
iv) On a known false representation of a material past or present fact; and
v) The representation is made with the intent to defraud.

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

robbery

A

i) Larceny;
ii) From the person or presence of the victim;
iii) By force or INTIMIDATION.

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

merger

A

Larceny, assault, and battery all merge into robbery or attempted robbery.

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

burglary

A

i) Breaking and;
ii) Entering;
iii) Of the dwelling;
iv) Of another;
v) At nighttime;
vi) With the specific intent to commit a felony therein.

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

battery

A

i) Unlawful;
ii) Application of force;
iii) To another person;
iv) That causes bodily harm to that person or constitutes an offensive touching.

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

assault

A

i) An attempt to commit a battery; or
ii) Intentionally placing another in apprehension of imminent bodily harm.

Fear of harm:
The “fear of harm” type of assault (also called “apprehension assault”) is a general-intent crime—the defendant must intend to cause bodily harm or apprehension of such harm. The victim’s apprehension must be reasonable. Unlike attempted battery, because actual apprehension is necessary, the victim’s lack of awareness of the threat of harm is a defense to this type of assault.

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

Specific intent crimes

A

Specific intent crimes require that the defendant possess a subjective desire, specific objective, or knowledge to accomplish a prohibited result. When dealing with specific intent crimes, it is necessary to identify specific intent for two reasons. First, the prosecution must prove the specific intent in order to prosecute the defendant; second, certain defenses (e.g., voluntary intoxication and unreasonable mistake of fact) are applicable only to specific intent crimes.

The specific intent crimes include:

i) First-degree murder;
ii) Inchoate offenses (attempt, solicitation, conspiracy);
iii) Assault with intent to commit a battery; and
iv) Theft offenses (larceny, larceny by trick, false pretenses, embezzlement, forgery, burglary, robbery).

21
Q

General intent crimes

A

General intent crimes require only the intent to perform an act that is unlawful. Examples include battery, rape, kidnapping, and false imprisonment.

Motive is not the same as intent. The motive is the reason or explanation for the crime and is immaterial to the substantive criminal offense.

22
Q

bad legal advice

A

Incorrect or bad legal advice from an attorney is not itself a valid mistake-of-law defense,

but it may negate the required intent or mental state for a material element of the crime.

23
Q

Impossibility [is or isn’t] defense to attempt if the crime attempted is factually impossible to commit

A

Impossibility is not a defense to attempt if the crime attempted is factually impossible to commit due to circumstances unknown to the defendant. If the girl had actually been only 13 years old, then there would have been a crime committed. Further, the MPC crime of attempt (as well as many jurisdictions) requires the performance of a substantial step to support a conviction of attempt, which the man performed here.

24
Q

conspiracy with minor

A

Conspiracy is (i) an agreement (ii) between two or more persons (iii) to accomplish an unlawful purpose (iv) with the intent to accomplish that purpose. Under the majority rule, one of the co-conspirators must also commit an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. However, when the purpose of a criminal statute is to protect a type of person (e.g., a statutory rape statute that protects minors), there is no conspiracy between the protected party and the targeted defendant. Here, the male is a member of the protected class because he is only 15 years old. Consequently, even though he agreed to have sexual intercourse with the 18-year-old female, he cannot be a party to the conspiracy. Because the only other person consenting to the sexual intercourse was the 18-year-old female, she cannot properly be charged with conspiracy to commit rape, as at least two people must agree in order to form a conspiracy.

25
Q

The Wharton Rule

A

(i.e., the rule that there is no conspiracy if a crime requires two or more participants unless more parties than are necessary to complete the crime agree to commit the crime)

26
Q

what does it mean to “exercise control over the illegal substance”

A

The crime of possession of an illegal substance, such as cocaine, requires only that the defendant exercise control over the illegal substance. Although generally an illegal substance found on a defendant’s person is sufficient evidence that the defendant has exercised control over the illegal substance, here the individual was not aware that the bag containing cocaine had been placed in his jacket pocket. Consequently, he could not be said to exercise control over the bag or its illegal contents.

27
Q

imperfect self-defense rule

A

The woman would likely be convicted of voluntary manslaughter under the imperfect self-defense rule. Imperfect self-defense occurs when the person claiming self-defense unjustifiably kills her attacker, such as when she honestly but unreasonably believes self-defense is required. The rule reduces the charge from murder to voluntary manslaughter. Because the woman honestly but unreasonably believed in the need for self-defense, the imperfect self-defense rule would apply, and she would likely be convicted of voluntary manslaughter.

28
Q

what to prove for invalid warrant

A

A defendant may go beyond the face of a warrant and challenge its validity due to the inclusion of false information in the affidavit. However, the defendant must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the false information was KNOWINGLY, INTENTIONALLY, OR WITH RECKLESS DISREGARD for its truthfulness included by the affiant in the affidavit and that the information was necessary to a finding of probable cause by the magistrate.

29
Q

prosecutorial vindictiveness

A

In the plea bargaining process, a prosecutor may threaten to charge a more serious crime in order to convince the defendant to plead guilty to a less serious charge. Such action does not rise to the level of prosecutorial vindictiveness, at least where there is probable cause for charging the more serious crime.

30
Q

robbery and murder, what is the charge

A

The underlying felony will generally merge into the crime of felony murder.

31
Q

the roommate heard a noise and went into the kitchen to find the boyfriend with her camera in hand. Panicked, the boyfriend pushed the roommate to the floor and ran out of the apartment with the camera. The boyfriend is most likely to be convicted of which of the following crimes?

A

Robbery is larceny from the person or presence of the victim by force or intimidation. The force need not be great, but must be more than the amount necessary to effectuate taking and carrying away the property. The elements of robbery, including the presence requirement, were satisfied here when the boyfriend pushed down the roommate and ran off with her camera.

  • battery merges into the crime of robbery
32
Q

how does solicitation differ from conspiracy

A

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

Factual impossibility is not a defense to solicitation.

common law conspiracy requires two participants.

33
Q

A woman’s husband told her that he was divorcing her, leaving the woman distraught. The woman and her sister decided to burn down the husband’s new house while the husband was at work. The next day, the woman and her sister purchased the necessary supplies and drove to the husband’s house. The sister waited in the car while the woman started the fire. They then drove off to avoid being noticed. Although the woman and her sister believed the husband was at work, in fact he had stayed home sick, and he was killed in the fire. The woman and her sister were both arrested and charged with both arson and homicide. May the woman and her sister be convicted of both arson and murder?

A

The woman and her sister may be convicted of either arson or murder.

The woman could be found guilty of arson because she intentionally burned down her husband’s house. Or, she could be convicted of her husband’s murder, because the husband’s death occurred during the commission of the arson, an inherently dangerous felony. However, because arson will merge with felony murder, she can only be convicted of one or the other.

34
Q

impossibility

A

D shoots V, believing that V is sleeping. V actually was already dead. D is guilty of attempted murder, but not murder.

35
Q

criminal assault v. apprehension assault

A

Assault is intentionally placing another in apprehension of imminent bodily harm. The victim’s apprehension must be reasonable.

“fear of harm” type of assault (also called “apprehension assault”) is a general-intent crime. the defendant must intend to cause bodily harm or apprehension of such harm.

36
Q

Pinkerton Rule

A

Under the Pinkerton Rule, a conspirator can be convicted of both the offense of conspiracy and all substantive crimes committed by any other co-conspirators acting in furtherance of the conspiracy. Under the MPC, the minority view, a member of the conspiracy is not criminally liable for such crimes unless that member aids and abets in the commission of the crimes.

37
Q

Factual impossibility is not a defense for what two crimes?

A

Factual impossibility (that it was factually impossible to complete the intended crime) is not a defense to conspiracy AND solicitation.

38
Q

impossibility as defense

A

Impossibility is not a defense to attempt if the crime attempted is factually impossible to commit due to circumstances unknown to the defendant.

39
Q

attempt requires

A

i) A SUBSTANTIAL STEP toward the commission of a crime; coupled with
ii) The specific intent to commit the crime.

40
Q

conspiracy requires

A

i) An agreement;
ii) Between two or more persons;
iii) To accomplish an unlawful purpose;
iv) With the intent to accomplish that purpose.

** NO OVER ACT IS REQUIRED **

41
Q

deadly force in response to attempted rape

A

Deadly force is force that is intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury. Deadly force may be justified in self-defense only when it is reasonably necessary to prevent death or serious injury or to prevent the commission of a serious felony involving a risk to human life. Here, the woman’s use of deadly force was reasonably necessary to prevent the man from raping her. Rape is an inherently dangerous felony and involves a risk of serious injury or death.

42
Q

insanity under MPC

A

Under the Model Penal Code (MPC) test for insanity, which combines the M’Naghten and irresistible-impulse tests, a defendant is not guilty by reason of insanity if,–>

“at the time of the conduct, he, as a result of a mental disease or defect, did not have substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of the act or to conform his conduct to the law.”

43
Q

malice aforethought

A

Malice aforethought includes the following mental states: intent to kill, intent to do serious bodily injury, reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life (depraved heart), or intent to commit certain felonies (felony murder)

44
Q

result of solicitation of battery

A

Assault is an attempt to commit a battery

45
Q

Wharton Rule

A

Under the Wharton Rule, if a crime requires two or more participants (e.g., adultery) there is no conspiracy unless more parties than are necessary to complete the crime agree to commit the crime.

Because the MPC does not require the participation of at least two conspirators, this rule does not apply to conspiracies under the MPC.

46
Q

malice crime

A

a reckless disregard of a high risk of harm

e.g. throwing knives at a person even though you are trained.

47
Q

involuntary manslaughter

A

In order for a defendant to be guilty of involuntary manslaughter, there must be a causal connection between the UNLAWFUL ACT and the death.

48
Q

is intoxication a defense to common law murder?

A

No, voluntary intoxication is NOT a defense to common law murder, which is a malice crime.

(it is a defense to “first-degree” murder)

49
Q

solicitation

A

i) Enticing, encouraging, requesting, or commanding of another person;
ii) To commit a crime;
iii) With the intent that the other person commits the crime.

EXAM NOTE: merges. look for separate crime that would not merge.

DEFENSES:
common law cannon renunciate
MPC may thwart

factual impossibility is NOT a defense