Crim Law & Pro Flashcards
jurisdiction of federal government
power to criminal and prosecute crimes that
- occur anywhere in the US
- occur on ships and planes
- committed by US nationals abroad
jurisdiction of states
can only punish crimes with some connection to the state
- crime that occurs in whole or in part inside the state
- conduct outside the state that involves an attempt to commit a crime inside the state
- conspiracy to commit a crime if an overt act occurred w/in the state
actus reus
what are the requirements for actus reus
- no thought crimes
- must be some physical act in the world (including speech)
- act must be voluntary (willed by the defendant, not involuntary act, need to have the motor control to do it, not necessarily want to do it)
- failure to act can be sufficient (ex. failure to comply with statutory duty, special relationship b/t D and victim, voluntarily assuming a duty of care that is cast aside, D causes a danger and fails to mitigate harm to the victim)
mens rea / common law
categories of intent
- specific intent
- malice
- general intent
- strict liability
mens rea / common law
specific intent
D committed the actus reus for the very purpose of causing the result that the law criminalizes
applies to FIAT crimes
specific intent crimes under common law (list)
common law
FIAT
- First-degree murder
- Inchoate crimes - Conspiracy, Attempt, Solicitation (CATS)
- Assault with attempt to commit battery
- Theft offenses - larceny, embezzlement, burglary, robbery, forgery
mens rea / common law
malice
common law
D acts in reckless disregard of a high degree of harm, D realizes the risk and acts anyway
Arson and Murder
“I AM certain there are two malice crimes”
mens rea / common law
general intent
common law
- catch-all
- requires an intent to perform an act that is unlawful
- do NOT need to know that the act is unlawful
mens rea / MPC
general intent crimes
MPC
knowingly, recklessly, or negligently
ex. battery, kidnapping, rape, false imprisonment
mens rea / MPC
specific intent crimes
MPC
purposely
mens rea / common law
strict liability
common law
- no state of mind requirement
- D must merely have committed the act
- statutory / regulatory offenses + moral offenses
moral offenses like statutory rape - doesn’t matter if you thought the victim was 18+
tip
“with the intent to”
what type of mens rea category is this?
specific intent
tip
“knowingly or recklessly”
what type of mens rea category is this
general intent
tip
what type of mens rea category is it if there’s no mens rea language
maybe strict liability
MPC
Model Penal Code
mens rea / MPC
hierarchy of mental states
MPC
- purpose (highest level of culpability)
- knowledge
- recklessness
- negligence
+ strict liability
mens rea / MPC
if no mens rea language, what is the default the prosecutor must prove?
MPC
recklessness
mens rea / MPC
purposely
MPC
D’s conscious objective is to engage in the conduct or to cause a certain result
mens rea / MPC
knowingly (or willfully)
MPC
D is aware that
1. their conduct is of the nature required to commit the crime
AND
2. the result is practically certain to occur from this conduct
mens rea / MPC
recklessly
MPC
D acts with a conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that
constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of conduct of a law-abiding person
mens rea / MPC
negligently
MPC
D should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk
and acts in a way that grossly deviates from the standard of care of a reasonable person in the same situation
mens rea
transferred intent doctrine
- only applies to competed crimes, not attempted
- when D has the requisite mens rea for committing a crime against Victim A, but actually commits the crime against Victim B
- law transfers the intent from A to B
vicarious liability
- holds a person or entity (like a corporation) liable for an actus reus committed by someone else
merger
general info about merger doctrine
- D can be convicted of 1+ crime arising out of the same act
- D cannot be convicted of 2 crimes when those crimes merge into one
- two categories - lesser-included offenses + merger of an inchoate and a completed offense
merger
lesser-included offenses
an offense in which each of its elements appears in another offense, but the other offense has something additional
can’t be convicted of both, but can be tried for both
like if offense 1 requires circle and square and offense 2 requires circle, square, triangle –> offense 1 is lesser-included offense, D can be convicted of #2 but not #1 b/c #1 merges into #2
merger / lesser-included offenses
if there are two separate victims, can you merge?
nope, crimes against each victim do not merge
merger / inchoate crimes
attempt
D who actually completes a crime CANNOT also be convicted of attempting that crime
merger / inchoate crimes
solicitation
merges into the completed offense
merger / inchoate crimes
do conspiracy and a completed substantive offense merge?
nope! D can be convicted of both conspiracy to commit a crime + crime itself
rule for children to be convicted of crimes (common law)
common law
- under age 7: NEVER capable of committing a crime
- 7 - 14: rebuttably presumed to be incapable
- 14+: can be charged as adults
principals, accomplices, aiders, abettors
principals
D whose acts or omissions form the actus reus of the crime
can be more than one principal to a particular crime
“who committed the actus reus that gives rise to the offense?”
principals, accomplices, aiders, abettors
accomplices
- theory for holding people other than the principal responsible for the crime committed by the principal
- same degree of responsibility as the principal
- assist principal before or during the commission of a crime
- must act with the intent of assisting the principal to commit the crime
- EXCEPTION: person protected by statute can’t be an accomplice in violating the statute (ex. victim of statutory rape)
principals, accomplices, aiders, abettors
are bystanders accomplices?
no, even approving bystanders
principals, accomplices, aiders, abettors
what is an accomplice liable for?
both the planned crime + any other foreseeable crimes that occur in the course of the criminal act
crimes that are the natural and probable consequnece of their conduct
principals, accomplices, aiders, abettors
can an accomplice be criminally liable if the principal can’t be convicted?
yes, accomplice can be criminally liable EVEN IF they can’t be principal or if the principal can’t be convicted
NOTE: this is the modern view. Under common law, accomplice can only be convicted if principal was convicted (PQs Set 3, Crim Law)
principals, accomplices, aiders, abettors
accessories after the fact
people who assist the D AFTER the crime has been committed
ex. obstruction of justice, harboring a fugitive
principals, accomplices, aiders, abettors
aiders and abettors
idv who aid or abet a D to commit a crime may also be guilty of the separate crime of conspiracy IF
there was an agreement to commit the crime + overt act was taken in furtherance of that agreement
principals, accomplices, aiders, abettors
mental state of accomplices - majority / MPC approach
MPC
accomplice (1) must act with the purpose of promoting or facilitating the commission of the offense
AND
(2) must intend that their acts will assist or encourage the criminal conduct
principals, accomplices, aiders, abettors
mental state of accomplices - minority approach
accomplice is liable IF they intentionally or knowingly aids or causes another person to commit an offense
principals, accomplices, aiders, abettors
mental state of accomplices - criminal facilitation (under majority rule)
person who is NOT guilty of the substantive crime (b/c lacks intent) may still be guilty of the lesser offense of criminal facilitation for simply assisting
negating mens rea
categories for negating mens rea
- mistake
- insanity
- intoxication
negating mens rea / mistake
what is mistake (generally)?
D will claim that some mistake (about facts or law) negates their mens rea SO they cannot be convicted of a crime for which there are mens rea + actus reus elements
mistakes of law + mistakes of fact
negating mens rea / mistake
mistake of law
- mistakes about what the law forbids and permits
- ignorance of the law is NOT an excuse
negating mens rea / mistake
mistakes of law - what are the potential exceptions?
- reliance on high-level govt interpretation
- lack of notice
- mistake of law that goes to an element of a specific-intent crime (only for FIAT crimes)
relying on your lawyer’s advice is NOT within these exceptions
tip
mistakes of fact - how to tackle
first determine whether the crime is a specific intent crime (FIAT), general intent crime, or strict liability crime
negating mens rea / mistake
mistake of fact - rule for strict liability crimes
mistake of fact is NEVER a defense to SL crimes
must be a voluntary act
D’s state of mind is irrelevant
negating mens rea / mistake
mistake of fact - rule for general intent crimes
defense ONLY IF mistake is reasonable + goes to criminal intent
negating mens rea / mistake
mistake of fact - rule for specific intent crimes (FIAT)
are a defense whether the mistake is reasonable or unreasonable
question is whether the D held the mistaken belief
negating mens rea / insanity
list of tests for insanity
- M’Naghten test
- Irresistible impulse test
- Durham rule
- MPC
negating mens rea / insanity
M’Naghten test
D either did not know the nature of the act OR did not know the act was wrong B/C OF mental disease or defect
negating mens rea / insanity
irresistible impulse test
D has a mental disease or defect that prevents D from controlling themself
negating mens rea / insanity
Durham rule
D would not have committed the crime BUT FOR having a mental disease or defect
D friendly so rarely used
negating mens rea / insanity
MPC
due to a mental disease or defect, D did not have substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of their actions OR to confirm their conduct to the law
negating mens rea / insanity
majority rule for burdens
- D has the burden of proving insanity either by a preponderance of the evidence OR clear and convincing evidence.
- some juris require D to intro evidence of insanity THEN burden of persuasion shifts to prosecution to prove sanity beyond a reasonable doubt
negating mens rea / intoxication
what substances are covered?
alcohol, drugs, and medications
negating mens rea / intoxication
involuntary intoxication - elements
occurs when a person
- doesn’t realize they received an intoxicating substance
- is coerced into ingesting a substance OR
- has an unexcited or unanticipated reaction to prescription medication
negating mens rea / intoxication
involuntary intoxication - what type of crimes can involuntary intoxication be a defense for?
- general intent
- specific intent
- malice crimes when it negates the mens rea necessary for the crime
negating mens rea / intoxication
voluntary intoxication - elements
person intentionally ingests the substance, knowing that it is an intoxicant
inchoate crimes / conspiracy
common law elements of conspiracy
common law
- agreement
- b/t 2+ people
- to commit an unlawful act
inchoate crimes / conspiracy
elements of conspiracy under federal law, MPC, majority states
MPC
- agreement
- b/t 2+ people
- to commit an unlawful act
- performance of an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy
MPC doesn’t require overt act if conspiratorial crime is felony 1st or 2nd
#4 is difference from common law
inchoate crimes / conspiracy
MPC conspiracy
MPC
ONLY D must actually agree to commit the unlawful act (so undercover agents can be the other people)
inchoate crimes / conspiracy
what is needed for the agreement?
- explicit or implicit
- simply knowing a crime is going to occur and doing nothing does NOT turn bystander into co-conspirator (lacks agreement)
inchoate crimes / conspiracy
what is needed for the purpose of the conspiracy?
- must be an unlawful act
- if conspirators agree to do something that is not a crime, then it’s not conspiracy
inchoate crimes / conspiracy
what is required for the overt act?
can be lawful or unlawful as long as it furthers the conspiracy
inchoate crimes / conspiracy
what is the scope of conspiracy under common law?
common law
each co-conspirator can be convicted of both
(1) conspiracy AND (2) all substantive crimes committed by any other conspirator acting in furtherance of the conspiracy
inchoate crimes / conspiracy
what are the two theories for the relationship of co-conspirators?
- chain conspiracy
co-conspirators are engaged in an enterprise consisting of many steps, each participant is liable for substantive crimes of their co-conspirators
ex. everyone on the supply chain of a drug ring is liable - spoke-hub conspiracy
involves many people dealing with a central hub, participants are NOT liable for substantive crimes of co-conspirators
each spoke is treated as separate agreement rather than one large general agreement
ex. pawn shop operating as a fence, each robber is not responsible for goods of the other robbers
inchoate crimes / conspiracy
how do you withdraw from a conspiracy in common law?
common law
impossible to withdraw b/c crime is complete the moment the agreement is made
inchoate crimes / conspiracy
how do you withdraw from a conspiracy under federal law and MPC?
MPC
conspirator can withdraw prior to the commission of any overt act by communicating her intention to withdraw to all other conspirators OR by informing law enforcement
after an overt act, conspirator can withdraw only by helping to thwart the success of a conspiracy
inchoate crimes / conspiracy
how can a D limit their liability for substantive crimes if they can’t withdraw from a conspiracy (federal law + MPC)?
MPC
informing other conspirators of the withdrawal OR
timely advising legal authorities
inchoate crimes / attempt
what is required for attempt (elements)?
- specific intent to commit a particular criminal act
AND - substantial step towards perpetrating the crime
specific intent crime even when completed offense is only a general intent crime
inchoate crimes / attempt
what defenses can be used for attempt?
defenses for specific intent crimes apply
certain defenses (voluntary intoxication, unreasonable mistake of fact) are available EVEN IF they wouldn’t be available had the crime been completed
inchoate crimes / attempt
can attempt be merged?
- attempt merges into a completed offense
- CANNOT be convicted of both attempted murder + murder of the same person in the same episode
- CAN be convicted of conspiracy to commit murder + murder
inchoate crimes / solicitation
what is required for solicitation?
occurs when an individual intentionally invites, requests, or commands another person to commit a crime
the ask is the crime
inchoate crimes / solicitation
what happens if the person agrees to the solicitation?
it’s conspiracy instead
inchoate crimes / solicitation
what happens if the person commits the offense?
solicitation merges into the completed offense
homicide
general definition of homicide
killings of a living human being by another human being
animals don’t count
victim can’t be dead already
suicide is not, but assisting someone can be
homicide
what causation is needed for homicide?
must be a causal relationship b/t D’s actions and what happened to victim
actual causation - victim wouldn’t have died but for what D did
AND
proximate causation - D’s act is a foreseeable cause of victim’s death / death is the natural and probable result of the conduct
independent actions by 3p are not a foreseeable cause
homicide
is consent a defense to homicide?
nope
tip
what is the default type of homicide on MBE if question doesn’t specify?
common law murder
homicide
what are the types of homicide?
- first degree murder
- common law murder
- manslaughter
homicide / first degree murder
what is required for first degree murder?
- specific intent crime
- deliberate and premeditated murder OR
- a killing that results during the commission of an inherently dangerous felony
felony murder is frequently classified as M1
homicide / common law murder
definition of common law murder
unlawful killing of another human being committed with malice aforethought
lawful killing of another is not murder (ex. state execution)
homicide / common law murder
what are the types of malice?
- intent to kill - D acted with desire that the victim end up dead, intent need not be premeditated
- intent to inflict serious bodily harm - D intended to hurt the victim badly and victim died
-
abandoned or malignant heart or depraved heart - D acted with cavalier disregard for human life and death resulted
D must realize their conduct is really risky, but doesn’t need intent regarding outcome of actions
majority + MPC: D must actually realize there is danger
minority: reasonable person would have recognized the danger -
felony - death occurred during the commission or attempted commission of a dangerous felony (BARRK felonies)
dangerous felony must be independent of killing itself
can involve someone who resists the felony
includes when bystander is killed during a felony
can include 3p killed by resistor or police (majority uses agency theory - D is only responsible for crimes of D’s agents)
homicide / common law murder
with felony murder: what happens if a co-felon is killed by a resistor or a police officer?
majority: D is not guilty of felony murder
minority: D might be guilty of felony murder
tip
what are the dangerous felonies?
BARRK
- burglary
- arson
- robbery
- rape
- kidnapping
homicide / common law murder
what if there is a death caused by another felony (not a BARRK felony) - is that common law murder?
nope, misdemeanor manslaughter
homicide / manslaughter
definition of manslaughter
all unlawful killings of another human being that are not M1 or common law murder (catch-all)
voluntary + involuntary manslaughter
homicide / manslaughter
voluntary manslaughter
- occurs when a D intends to kill the victim, but mens rea is less blameworthy than murder
- acted in heat of passion or under extreme emotional disturbance
- test: is this situation one in which most people would act w/o thinking and w/o time to cool off?
ex. walking in to your spouse in bed with someone else (not hearing about it)
homicide / manslaughter
involuntary manslaughter
- criminally negligent killing OR killing someone while committing someone other than those covered by felony murder (BARRK)
- D who engages in a criminally negligent conduct and causes a death
property crimes
list the property crimes
- larceny
- robbery
- burglary
property crimes / larceny
list elements of larceny
common law
- taking any movement of property
- another person’s property tangible personal property only
-
without their consent (trespassory) AND
consent must be real (not by a trick)
D has burden of proving there was consent -
with the intent to deprive them of it permanently
borrowing is not larceny
specific intent crime (part of theft)
property crimes / larceny
is it larceny if the property was destroyed in your care?
no if you intended to give it back
property crimes / larceny (variation)
embezzlement
common law
D starts out with victim’s consent to have the property BUT commits embezzlement by converting the property to their own use
property crimes / larceny (variation)
false pretenses
common law
D obtains title to someone else’s property through an act of deception
mens rea: with the specific intent to defraud (intent to steal)
PQs Set 3, Crim Law
property crimes / larceny
MPC requirements for larceny, embezzlement, and false pretenses
MPC
treated as single statutory crime of theft that includes tangible and intangible property
property crimes / robbery
elements of robbery
common law
robbery = larceny + assault
- taking
- another person’s property
- without their consent
- with intent to deprive them of it permanently
- taking occurs from victim’s person or in their presence
- either by violence or putting victim in fear of imminent physical harm
property crimes / robbery (variation)
extortion
common law
involves threats of fixture harm (including non-physical harm)
majority: threat alone is sufficient
minority: threat + actually obtaining the property
property crimes / burglary
common law burglary requirements
common law
- breaking and
- entering
- the dwelling (structure regulars lived in)
- of another (can’t burgle yourself)
- at night
- with specific intent to commit a felony once inside (usually larceny)
property crimes / burglary
modern law burglary requirements
- breaking and
- entering
- the property (can include commercial buildings)
- of another
- at any time
- with specific intent to commit a felony once inside
property crimes / burglary
what is needed for the elements of breaking and entering?
breaking can involve pushing open or smashing a door or window, or obtaining entry by fraud or threat
entering involves breaking the plane of the dwelling
battery
elements of battery
- unlawful (consent is a complete defense)
- application of force
- to another person
- that causes bodily harm OR an offensive touching
general intent crime
doesn’t require actual physical contact b/t D and victim
assault
what are the types of assault?
- attempted battery
- fear of harm
assault
attempted battery
- if D has taken a substantial step toward completing a battery but fails
- specific attempt crime b/c attempt
assault
fear of harm
- intentionally placing another in reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact
- general intent crime
PQs Set 2 Crim Law
rape
elements of common law rape
- unlawful
- sexual intercourse
- with a female
- against her will by force or threat of force
rape
elements of modern rape statutes (generally)
- unlawful
- sexual intercourse
- with anyone (gender neutral)
- without their consent (no force requirement)
rape
is rape a general intent or specific intent crime? what defenses are available?
- general intent
- voluntary intoxication CANNOT be a defense
rape
statutory rape
- strict liability offense
- ignorance or mistake about victim’s age is not a defense
kidnapping
- unlawful
- confinement of another person
- against that person’s will
- either by moving or hiding the victim
arson
arson - basic elements
common law
- malicious
intent to act in a way that will cause burning or is substantially likely to do so - burning
- of another person’s
- dwelling
arson
what is required for “burning” under common law + modern statutes?
common law - had to be a burning (fire) not just explosion or smoke damage
required to damage structure of building not just contents
modern - arson even if no damage to structure or fire caused by explosion
arson
what is required for “another person” under common law + modern statutes?
common law - can’t torch your own home
modern - it’s still arson if it’s your home (insurance fraud concerns)
arson
what is required for “dwelling” under common law + modern statutes?
common law - had to be a dwelling, not another structure
modern - commercial buildings count
perjury
willful act of falsely promising to tell the truth (verbally or in writing) about material matters
- person must know what they are saying is false
- person must intend to say something that is false AND
- falsity must go to a material matter
subornation of perjury
person persuades someone else to commit perjury