Crim Law-Pro

Question 1

define voluntary manslaughter

Answer 1

Voluntary manslaughter is the intentional killing of another during the heat of passion due to adequate provocation. Adequate provocation reduces the charge from murder to manslaughter and is established if:

1) the defendant was provoked by a sudden and intense passion;
2) a reasonable person would be provoked;
3) there was no cooling off before the killing.

Question 2

define involuntary manslaughter

Answer 2

Involuntary manslaughter is the (maj: reckless / min: with gross negligence) killing of another without malice aforethought by conduct that creates an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Question 3

Rules for accomplice

Answer 3

A person is guilty as an accomplice if he assists or encourages the principal and intends that the principal commit the offense charged.

Under the theory of accomplice liability, a person is not guilty of being an accomplice, but is guilty for the crime committed.

Question 4

Rules for Causation

Answer 4

Causation requires showing that the defendant’s acts were both the actual and proximate cause of the outcome.

Proximate cause is present if the outcome was foreseeable. Actual cause is present if the injury would not have occurred “but for” the defendant’s conduct.

Question 5

Rule for wrongful act accelerating death

Answer 5

A defendant’s wrongful act that accelerates death is still the legal cause of death, even if the person was going to die eventually.

Question 6

Rule for common law specific intent

Answer 6

Specific intent is the intent of desire to engage in the conduct or cause a certain result.

Question 7

Rule for common law malice

Answer 7

Malice is a reckless disregard of a known risk that harm may occur.

Question 8

Rule for common law general intent

Answer 8

General intent is found when the actor has an awareness of acting a certain way.

Question 9

MPC rule for recklessly

Answer 9

A person acts recklessly if he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a certain result would occur AND the action is a gross deviation from how a reasonable person would act. (same as criminal negligence except “consciously disregards” instead of “should be aware”)

Question 10

MPC rule for knowingly

Answer 10

A person acts knowingly if he is aware that his conduct is if a particular nature or will cause a certain result to occur.

Question 11

MPC rule for criminal negligence

Answer 11

A person acts with criminal negligence if he should have been aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk AND the action is a gross deviation from how a reasonable person would act. (same as recklessly except “should be aware” instead of “consciously disregards”)

Question 12

Common law rule for murder

Answer 12

Under the common law, murder is the unlawful killing of another with malice aforethought.

Some j/xs divide murder into first and second degree.

Question 13

Rule for malice aforethought

Answer 13

Malice aforethought is established upon a showing of:

• an intent to kill;
• an intent to inflict great bodily injury;
• a reckless disregard of an extreme risk to human lice (depraved heart); OR
• an intent to commit an inherently dangerous felony.

Question 14

MPC rule for murder

Answer 14

Under the Model Penal Code, murder is purposeful or known killing of a person OR recklessly under an extreme indifference to the value of human life.

(Reckless driving alone usually does not constitute a depraved-heart murder, unless combined with intoxication.)

Question 15

Rule for Larceny

Answer 15

Larceny is the trespassory taking and carrying away of the personal property of another with contemporaneous intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property.

Question 16

Rule for False Pretenses

Answer 16

False pretenses occurs when one acts with intent to defraud and obtains title to personal property of another through a known false statement of material fact.

Question 17

Rule for embezzlement

Answer 17

Embezzlement is the fraudulent or wrongful conversion of personal property of another by a person with lawful possession of the property.

Question 18

Rule for receipt of stolen goods

Answer 18

Receipt of stolen goods is when a person receives possession of stolen property who knows the property is stolen at the time and has the intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property.

Question 19

Rule for the defense of duress

Answer 19

Duress excuses a defendant’s conduct if it was the result of a threat of imminent death or serious bodily injury to the defendant or another AND the defendant reasonably believed he was unable to avoid the harm by non-criminal conduct. (not available for intentional killing, but is available to felony murder).

Question 20

Rule for M’Naughten Test for insanity

Answer 20

Under the M’Naughten Test, insanity is found when the defendant acted under a mental disease or defect that resulted in the defendant being unable to know the wrongfulness or his conduct or unable to understand the nature and quality of his acts. (States: proven by a preponderance of the evidence; Federal: clear and convincing)

Question 21

Rule for MPC test for insanity

Answer 21

Under the Model Penal Code, insanity is found when the defendant acted as a result of a mental disease or defect and the defendant was unable to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or unable to conform his actions to the law. (States: proven by a preponderance of the evidence; Federal: clear and convincing)

Question 22

General rule for warrant requirement for searches

Answer 22

The 4th Amendment provides everyone to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. A warrantless search or seizure is unreasonable unless an exception applies.

Evidence obtain without a warrant or valid exception should be excluded.

Question 23

List the 8 warrant exceptions

Answer 23

1) plain view; 2) exigent circumstances; 3) automobile exception; 4) search incident to an arrest; 5) consent; 6) inventory searches; 7) stop and frisk; and 8) where the SCOTUS concluded there is a special need.

Question 24

Rule for plain view doctrine

Answer 24

Under the plain view doctrine, the police may seize evidence without a warrant if it is observed in plain view from a place the officer is lawfully permitted to be AND the officer had probable cause to believe that the item was evidence of a crime or contraband.

Question 25

Rule for automobile exception

Answer 25

The automobile exception allows a warrantless search of a vehicle where the police have probable cause that either contraband or evidence of a crime will be found.

If there is probable cause, the police can search the entire care and any packages, luggage, or containers that may reasonably contain the item.

Question 26

Rule for 5A Miranda

Answer 26

Under the 5th Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, a person has a right to not incriminate himself and must be given Miranda warnings before a custodial interrogation.

A suspect’s waiver must be voluntary and knowing and intelligent. Plus, a suspect’s invocation of Miranda must be clear and unambiguous. (“I think I need a lawyer” or “maybe I should talk to a lawyer” is insufficient.)

Question 27

Rule for custody for Miranda purposes

Answer 27

For Miranda purposes, a person is in custody when they reasonably believe they are not free to leave.

Question 28

Rule for interrogation for Miranda purposes

Answer 28

For Miranda purposes, a person is subject to interrogation when the police know or should know that their conduct is likely to elicit an incriminating response.

Miranda rights only protect statements or acts that are communicative or testimonial in nature. (Crying is not considered a testimonial communication. Miranda does not apply to spontaneous statements by a person.)

Question 29

Rule for public safety exception under Miranda

Answer 29

Under the public safety exception, limited interrogation without Miranda is allowed when prompted by a concern for public safety or the safety of the officer (to secure a weapon).

Question 30

Rule for 5A and confessions

Answer 30

When determining whether a confession overcame a person’s free will, courts consider the length and tactics used in the interrogation and the age and experience of the suspect. Statements made in violation of the Fifth Amendment or Miranda are subject to the exclusionary rule. (statements not admissible in prosecutor’s case in chief, but admissible to impeach).

Question 31

Rule for Exclusionary Rule

Answer 31

Under the Exclusionary Rule, evidence obtained in violation of a defendant’s 4th, 5th, or 6th Amendment rights is inadmissible in a criminal trial. Additionally, all derivative evidence is inadmissible as fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.

The exclusionary rule does not apply if
- the police had an independent source for the secondary evidence; or
-the evidence would have inevitably been discovered; or
the police relied in good faith on a defective search warrant.

Question 32

Rule for 6th Amend right to counsel

Answer 32

The Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel attaches once formal proceedings have been commenced. the accused has the right to counsel in all criminal prosecutions that carry a substantial risk of more than 1 year in jail.

The Sixth Amendment is offense-specific. Thus, it only applies to the offense charged, and does not prevent questioning about unrelated offenses without an attorney.

Question 33

Rule for double jeopardy in criminal prosecution

Answer 33

The double jeopardy clause of the 5th amendment prevents a defendant from being prosecuted twice for the same offense. Jeopardy attached once the jury is impaneled and sworn.

Defendant can be retried when: hung jury; original trial terminated at defendant’s request; mistrial.

Question 34

Rule for Blockburger Test in double jeopardy

Answer 34

Under the Blockburger test, two distinct crimes do not constitute the same offense for double jeopardy if each crime requires proof of a fact that the other does not.

Question 35

Rule for burden of proof in criminal

Answer 35

The prosecution must prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden cannot be shifted, except for affirmative defenses (insanity and self-defense).

Question 36

Rule for DP violations of presumptions in criminal jury instructions

Answer 36

A jury instruction that creates a rebuttable presumption of an element of the crime violates Due Process if it shifts the burden to the defendant.

A jury instruction that creates an irrebuttable presumption for an element of the crime is a per se violation of the Due Process clause.

Question 37

Rule for insufficiency of the evidence in criminal

Answer 37

Evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction when a reasonable jury would not find that each element was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Question 38

Rule for Judgment of Acquittal

Answer 38

After the prosecution closes its case in chief, the defendant may move for a Judgment of Acquittal. If the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction, the court MUST enter Judgment of Acquittal for the defendant.

Question 39

Rule for Harmless Error Rule in criminal

Answer 39

Under the harmless error rule, even if the evidence in violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights was improperly admitted, a guilty verdict will stand if the prosecution can prove that the error was harmless because the defendant would have been convicted even without the tainted evidence.

Question 40

Rule for Burglary

Answer 40

Burglary requires entry into a building or dwelling with the specific intent to commit a felony therein. Burglary is complete upon entry into the building.

Question 41

Rule for Theft

Answer 41

Theft requires the taking and carrying away of personal property of another with intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property.

Question 42

Rule for facts increasing penalty of crime must be submitted to jury

Answer 42

Defendant’s have a Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial on facts, other than a fact of prior conviction, to be submitted to the jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.