Crim law and procedure Flashcards
voluntary intoxication defense under MPC
only a defense to crimes for which the MR is purposefully or knowingly. (specific intent crimes)
to prevail, D must prove his intoxication prevented formation of requisite MR
specific intent crimes
assault
murder (premediated or deliberated)
burglary
inchoate crimes (conspiracy, attempt, solitication)
theft crimes - larceny, robbery, embezzlment, alse pretenses, forgery, receiving stolen property, extortion
AMBIT
larceny
trespassory taking of another individual’s property with the intent to permanetly deprive them of their property
attempt
occurs when D:
1) has specific intent to commit a crime,
2) performs an act in furtherance of the intended crime, but
3) does not complete it
*always requires proof that D specificially intended to commit a crime - even if target crime doesnt require specific intent
robbery
1) d unlawfully took and carried away the v’s personal property,
2) the property was taken from the victim’s person or presence by force or intimidation, and
3) D specifically intended to permanently deprive the victim of property
*force element includes force to retain property immediately thereafter
No reasonable expectation of privacy in
open fields
car while driving (license plate)
use and derivative use immunity
precludes the use of a person’s tesitmony and any evidence derived from it against him in a crim proceeding
*evid obtained from an independent source can be used
a court should instruct the jury on a lesser included offense if
based on the evid presented at trial, a rational jury could acquit D of the charged offense but convict D of lesser included offense
amount of embezzlement is measured by
the value of the property at the time of the conversion
supremacy clause prohibits
state courts from challenging the legality of a person being held in federal custody through issuance of a habeas
common law conspiracy
requires proof that at least 2 people entered into an agreement w/ specific intent to accomplish a criminal act (bilateral theory)
when the conspired act viols a statute desinged to protect memebrs of a given class, a member of that class cannot be guilty of the criminal act or conspiracy to commit it
an owners later consent to taking does not equal
a defense to larceny
warrantless search of a passenger
a passengers mere presence with a criminal or in a suspicious car is not enough to establish probably cause to search that person
US v. Booker
any fact which is necessary to support a sentence exceeding the max authorized by the facts established by a GY plea or found by a jury must be admitted by D or proved to the jury beyond a reasnoable doubt
5th amendment double jeopardy lesser included offenses
whether the elements of the charge are wholly contained in the more serious charge - if each charge requires proof of a fact that the other does not
duress excuses D from criminal liability if
their conduct was commited under the pressure of an unlawful threat from another human to harm D
the unlawful threat must cause D to reasonably believe that the only way to avoid imminent death/serious bodily injury is to engage in the conduct which voids the terms of the criminal law
*never a defense to murder
MPC affirmative defense of duress
a threat such that a person of reasonable firmness would be unable to resist it
M’Naghten test for NGRI (common law)
defense must prove that at the time of the offense,
1) D suffered from a mental disease or defect; and
2) as a result of that defect or mental disease, D at the time of the act did not know the nature and quality of the act OR that the act was wrong
mental disease must be sufficently severe to cause 2nd prong
*jurisidctions differ on meaning of “wrong” - legally or morally wrong?
other insanity defense
as a result of severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts
malice crimes require proof that D was…
practically certain that his act would cause a particular result (knowledge) or consciously disregarded risk of harm (recklessness)
murder at common law
an unlawful killing committed with malice aforethought
intent to kill,
intent to cuase serious bodily harm,
reckless disregard for human life, or
in course of committing a felony
1st degree murder MPC
an intentional killing with premeditation and deliberation
some juris say need period of cooling off time others say can happen within seconds
in prosecution for possession of controlled usbstnace, D’s knowledge that substance was controlled may be established by…
1) evid D knew substance was prohibited by law, or
2) D knew facts about the substance that made it illegal to poss
under the MPC if evid a D acts w/ and possess a more culpable MR then that will satisify a lower MR required by the statute
5th amendment double jeopardy protectiosn attached when
a jury is impaneled and sworn OR
a judge beings to heard evid (bench trial)
*if a crim charge is DM before trial, jeop doesnt attach and gov can re-prosecute
statements in viol of 5A Miranda can be used
for limited purpose of impeaching a crim D’s inconsistent testimony if statement was voluntary and trustworthy
murder may be reduced to voluntary masnalighter if D acted in imperfect self senfes which occurs when
1) D honestly but reasonably believed deadly force was necessary to prevent bodily injury or death; or
2) D started altercation that lead to necessary use and deadly force
for burglary, a breaking can still occur after a D enters a dwelling with consent if
D subsequently enters part of a dwelling (opening door/closet) without consent
merely opening an objection wihtin a dwelling (drawer, trunk, box) is not a breaking
duress and necessity are never a defense to
murder
conspiracy (modern)
requires proof of only one guilty mind
depraved heart murder (common law)
is the reckless disregard of an obvious or unjustifiably high risk of causing death or serious bodily injury
in most juris, D must actually realize danger posed by his conduct to be convicted of common law murder
common law solitication occurs when…
a D
1) entices, encourages, or commands another to commit a crime,
2) with the specific intent that the person copmmit the crime
automobile exception
justifies a warrantless search of a person’s car when cops have pc to believe evid of a crime is contained in car and search is limited to areas where evid may be located
can search containers and locked containers in car that may contain illegal evidence
larceny by false pretenses
knowingly misrepresents a past or present material fact w/ intent to defraud and thereby obtains possession of another’s property
self defense
an otherwise unlawful use of force may be justified if it was done in self defense.
doesnt extend to first aggressor unless intital aggressor’s use of nondeadly force is met with deadly force and when initial aggressor completely withdraws and communicates that to the V
when do police have to cease interrogation 5A (Davis v. US)
if an arrestee makes an unamibigous and unequivocal requiest or demand for an attorney, police must cease the interrogation and honor the request
if suspect was subject to custodial interrogation without miranda, a subseuqent confession by suspect may be admitted if (oregon v. elstad)
totality of the circumstances estabishes that second statement was knowing and voluntary
plain view doctrine
if polcie are lawfully in a position from which they view an object, if its incriminating chracter is immediatley apparent and if officers have a lwful right of access to the object, they may seize it wihtout a warrant
involuntary manslaughter at common law
unintentionally killing another
1) during an unlawful act or,
2) with criminal negligence - the substantial failure to act as a reasonable person would act
if D comes dangeorusly close to comiting the crime
D cannot avoid liablity by abandoning his plan
an accessory after the fact
1) knows that the principal has committed a felony,
2) aids or assist principal after felony is completed, and
3) does so to help the principal avoid apprehension or conviction
transferred intent
Ds specific intent to kill one person will be transferred to the person actually harmed by the D
exclusionary rule prohibits
use of illegally obtained evidence at trial
NOT at grand jury proceedings
6th amendment right to counsel attaches
once judicial proceedings commence and guarantees D access to any atty during all critical stages
6A critical stages
interrogations (cops and informants) & lineups,
preliminary hearings & arraignments,
plea negotiations and hearings,
trial & sentencing,
appeals
an accomplice must
aid or encourage the principal with the intent to further the prinicpal’s criminal aim.
intent can be inferred when accomplice has a personal stake in the crime being committed
D cannot be convicted of solicitation if
1) the solicited crime requires more than one participant,
2) the criminal statute only imposes liablity on one participant; and
3) the soliticiating party is the type of person law was intended to protect
At common law, the property must be…
tangible personal property
theft of real property does not equal larcen
Under the MPC and modern theft statutes, crim liablity for property crimes includes
intangible prop
a statute can permit warrantless adminsitrative searchs of highly regulated industries if
1) the statute’s purpose involves substanital government interest;
2) warrantless searches are necessary to further the gov interest; and
3) statute provides constitutionally adequate substitute for a warrant
receiving stolen property occurs when
1) the person who receives control of stolen property knows it was stolen; and
2) specifically intends to permanently derpive the owner of that property
mistake of fact is a defense when
that misbelief
1) wouldve justified Ds criminal act had the belief been true; or
2) negate the requisite MR for charged crime
*never a defense for strict liablity crimes
mistake of law is…
never a defense
attempted larceny by agent is completed when
item is taken even if the principal never gets it
burden of proof for affirmative defenses is on
the defendant
taking requirement for larceny is satisifed by
trespassory removal of the property from the owner’s possession into another’s control
taking can be done by D or D’s agent
possessory offenses require proof D
1) knowingly recieved an illegal item; or
2) exercised dominion and control over the item after learning of its illegal character
5A double jeopardy clause protects crim Ds from undue gov harassment by prohibiting:
1) multiple punishments for the same offense, and
2) a second prosecution for the same offense after a conviction or acquittal.
two crimes constitute the same offense when: both crimes have indetnical elements or every element of one crime is also an element of the other crime
if a lesser crim charge satisfues the requirements of a higher charge then
the lesser included offense mergers with the higher offense
5A priv against self incrimination protects suspects rom being compelled to provide self incrim evid that is testimonial or comunicative in nature
the compelled act of producing a doc is priv if that act would prove:
the doc exists
the suspect poss the doc, or
the doc is authentic
transactional immunity
protects the suspect from being prosecuted for any crimes associated with self incrim testimonial communications
exigent circumstances = exception to warrantless search when cops have pc to believe that one of the following exisits:
evanescent evidnece - there is an imminent threat that relevant evid will be destoryed,
emergency situation - there is an immediate threat of harm to police and/or the public,
hot pursuit - a suspect fleeing after felony occured
evid of prior crimes or bad acts may be admissible for relevant, noncharacter purposes
motive - to show purpose for committing charged crime
intent - to establish guilty mind or negate good faith
absence of mistake - to negate mistake or accident and prove deliberate act
indentity - to connect d to crime w/ unique pattern of behavior (criminal signature)
common scheme or plan - to show prep or planning
other - to show knowledge of crime, opportunity to commit crime, consciousness of guilty
MIMIC
voluntary manslaughter
intention killing mitigated by either:
1) adequate provocation (provocation that would cause a reaosnable man to lose his normal self control and rendering the mind of a reasonable person incapable of cool reflection), and
2) heat of passion
3) other mitigating factors (imperfect self defense)
justification defense of defense of others
States typically use one of two rules to evaluate defense of others.
1) D steps into the shoes of the person being attacked and can claim defense of others only if the person being attacked could have acted in self-defense
2) if he reasonably (but mistakenly) believed that the person being attacked had a right to act in self defense
forcible felony typically involve
use or threat of physical force or violence against an individual (e.g., murder,
manslaughter, sexual battery, robbery, arson, kidnapping, battery)
after invocation of miranda rights, counsel must be provided before a suspect can be questioned unless the suspect
1) intiaites contact with law enforcement,
2) is given a fresh set of miranda warnings, and
3) executes a knowing and intelligent waiver
MD v. Shatzer - time requirement for cessation of custodial interrogation
court held that cessation of custodial interrogatin for 14 days terminated the edwards requirement. after 14 days law enforcement may approach a suspect who has previosuly invoked miranda and reinitiate custodial interrogation even w/out a lawyer
Miranda does not require perfect adherence to the suggested language in the decision itself
warnings must reasonably convey to a suspect his rights as required by miranda
clear and unequivocal request for counsel
a suspect must “articulate [her] desire to have counsel present sufficiently clearly that a reasonable police officer in the circumstances would understand the
statement to be a request for an attorney
common law burglary
breaking and entering of the dwelling of another in the night with the intent to commit a felony therein
embezzlement
a person unlawfully converts property owned by another to his own use with the intent to permanently deprive the lawful owner of the property
under the common law dangerous proximity test, an overt act occurs when
D was dangerously close to completing the crime
AR for common law murder (unlawful killing) is met when the unlawful result (death) is caused by any of the following
vol act - D consciously performed a bodily movement
omission - d had a legal duty to act, could physcially perform that act, but failed to do so
vicarious liality - D was responsible for another’s actions
necessity defense
crime (other than murder) committed to prevent imminent threat of serious bodily harm from human force
reasonable belief crime was necessary to prevent harm to self or other
no reasonable opportunity to escape
consent to sexual intercourse obtained by fraud in factum
fraud pertains to nature of act (doctor convinces patient that sexual act is part of the medical exam), and
v is unaware the he is consenting to sexual intercourse
Negates v’s consent
consent to sexual intercourse obtained by fraud in inducement
fraud pertains to what v knows is an act of sexual intercourse (D promises to marry in exchange for sex), and
V is aware that she is consenting to sexual intercourse
Does not negate v’s consent
Competency
D is not competent for trial if D cannot
1) understand the nature of the proceeding against him, and
2) cannot assist in his own defense
school officials may search a student without a warrant if
1) they have reasonable suspicion that the student viol a law or school rule,
2) the scope of the search is reasonably related to the suspected offense, and
3) the search is not excessively intrusive
a warrant is required if the search is conducted at the direction of the police
forgery requires
the making of a false document of apparent legal signficance (will, check)
terry stop and frisk
4A permits detention of an indvidual for a brief period of time if the police have reasonable, articulable suspicion that the individual has been recently involved in criminal activity
standard for excluding a confession under 14A due process
1) whether the police subjected the suspect to coercive conduct, and
2) whether the conduct was sufficent to overcome the will of the suspect
