Crim Law/Pro Flashcards
Before a person can claim that evidence was seized in an unconstitutional manner, they must show that they have ?
Standing - i.e. that one’s own constitutional rights were violated.
To have standing a person must show that
He has a reasonable expectation of privacy that was violated.
That expectation arises in a person’s home or another home where they are an overnight guest.
To establish an attempt for robbery you need to show beyond a reasonable doubt that
MPC:
Traditional:
D had specific intent to commit a robbery and took some step towards completing the act.
MPC Substantial step: a step beyond mere preparation
Traditional approach: proximity test: acts committed by D must come dangerously close to completing the crime
One cannot avoid liability for a completed criminal act by
MPC:
renouncing it, once a D has completed an attempt, abandonment can no longer be a defense
MPC says abandonment must be fully voluntary and complete (not a mere postponement)
Interrogation is
any statement, question, or conduct by police intended to elicit an incriminating response.
A statement that is in violation of Miranda does not prevent
its use to establish PC
The Fourth Amendment, which is applicable to the states through
the DPC of the 14A broadly prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.
Probable cause
reasonably trustworthy facts that would lead a prudent person to believe that a crime was committed
Reasonable suspicion:
reason to believe that criminal activity is afoot on something less than PC but based on reasonably articulable facts.
Under the Supreme Court’s exclusionary rule
evidence obtained in violation of a person’s constitutional rights generally will be excluded from admission into evidence at trial. And doctrine applies not only to unconstitutional evidence but also to evidence derived from unconstitutionally obtained evidence.
If the police did a question first warn later both episodes
will be considered excluded even after the suspect was given Miranda.
Attenuation to the exclusionary rule:
the temporal proximity between the unconstitutional conduct and the discovery of the evidence, the presence of intervening circumstances, and most importantly the flagrancy of the official misconduct.
How do you commit involuntary manslaughter?
A person commits involuntary manslaughter when they cause death by criminal negligence.
What is the necessary mens rea needed for criminal negligence?
A person has a mens rea for CN when he fails to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk, and this failure constitutes a substantial deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in the same situation.
What are the elements for being an accomplice?
An accomplice is a person who (1) with the intent to assist the principal and the intent that the principal commits the crime and (2) actually aids, counsels, or encourages the principal before or during the commission of the crime.
How do you satisfy recklessness or negligence as its’ mens rea?
When the substantive offense has recklessness or negligence as its mens rea, most jurisdictions hold that the intent element is satisfied if the accomplice (1) intended to facilitate the commission of the crime, and (2) acted with recklessness or negligence (whichever is required.)
What are the two types of involuntary manslaughter?
There are two types of involuntary manslaughter: criminal negligence manslaughter and unlawful act manslaughter.
What is criminally negligent manslaugher? (CNM)
- A person commits CNM when he causes a death by CN.
- CN requires a greater deviation from the RP standard than is required for civil liability; the D’s behavior must be a substantial deviation from the standard of care that a RP would have exercised in the same situation.
- Some states use a recklessness standard for Involuntary Manslaughter and require that the D have had a subjective awareness of the risk of death.
What is unlawful act manslaughter?
Unlawful Act Manslaughter, in which a death is caused by the defendant’s commission of an unlawful act.
What is the defense of duress?
The defense of duress means that a person is not guilty of an offense, other than intentional homicide, if he performs an otherwise criminal act under the threat of imminent infliction of death or great bodily harm, provided that he reasonably believes death or great bodily harm will be inflicted on himself if he does not perform such conduct.
What must the Defendant’s act be in relation to the victim?
Defendant’s act must be the cause-in-fact and proximate cause of the victim’s death.
How do you determine whether the Defendant’s act was the cause-in-fact of the victim’s death?
To determine whether the D’s act was the cause-in-fact of the victim’s death, a “but for” test is applied.
How do you determine when a Defendant proximately causes the victim’s death?
The D proximately causes the victim’s death when the death is a natural and probable consequence of the D’s conduct, even if he does not anticipate the precise manner in which the death occurs
What does an intervening act do with regards to criminal liability?
An intervening act will shield the D from criminal liability when the intervening act is mere coincidence or unforeseeable.
- The intervening act will then be deemed to be the actual, proximate cause of the victim’s death.
