Crim Law/Pro Flashcards
Basic Elements of a Crime
- Act
- Intent
- Causation: 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.
- Concurrence of the act and mental state
Accomplice Liability
Principal: The one whose with the requisite mental state actually engages in the act or omission and causes the criminal result
Accomplice: One who aids, advises, or encourages the principal in the commission of the crime charged.
A person is guilty as an accomplice if he assists or encourages the principal with dual intents:
1. The Intent to assist the principal, and
2. The intent that the principal commit the offense charged.
Remember a person is not liable for accomplice liability—they are liable for the crime committed through the theory of accomplice liability.
Rule: An accomplice is responsible for the crimes they did or counseled and any other crimes committed in the course of committing the crime contemplated to the same extent as the principal as long as the other crimes were probable or foreseeable.
Murder
Introduction to murder: state: “In order to be guilty of murder, the defendant must have the mens rea of malice aforethought which is satisfied in most jurisdictions with intent to kill (first-degree), with knowledge that his acts would kill (first-degree), with intent to inflict great bodily harm
(second-degree), or with reckless disregard of an extreme risk to human life (second-degree).”
First Degree Murder: This is the intent to kill with premeditation and deliberation. Some states follow the rule that premeditation and deliberation require proof of a cool mind capable of reflection and some period of reflection. Other states follow the view that premeditation and deliberation can occur in an instant and can be inferred from circumstantial evidence (e.g., using a
deadly weapon)
Second-degree murder: This is satisfied by the intent to inflict great bodily harm or by acting with
reckless disregard of an extreme risk to human life (depraved heart murder). (Note: it is also the catchall—i.e., when an act constitutes “murder” but is not quite first-degree.)
§ Note that the requirement for depraved heart murder usually requires that the defendant acted recklessly and that the defendant’s conduct shows a “high degree of indifference to the value of human life.”
Felony murder: This applies to any killing that occurs during the commission of a felony, an attempt to commit a felony, or a flight from a felony. The felony must be inherently dangerous, and the purpose of the felonious conduct must be independent of the homicide.
Voluntary manslaughter: An intentional killing of a human being without malice aforethought committed in the heat of passion due to adequate provocation.
Involuntary manslaughter (misdemeanor manslaughter): The defendant causes the death of another human being by engaging in conduct that creates an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily injury. The majority view is that the defendant must have acted “recklessly.” Some states say that “gross negligence” is enough.
Attempt
To prove attempt, the prosecution must prove two elements:
1. The defendant intended to commit the crime, and
2. The defendant’s acts went sufficiently beyond “mere preparation” to commit the crime. (The common law uses the words “dangerously close” to the crime, whereas the Model Penal Code requires that the defendant’s conduct is a “substantial step” toward the crime and corroborative of his criminal intent.)
In most states, abandonment is not a defense to attempt. (J2009)
Defenses
Duress: The defendant commits a crime because there was a threat or use of force by another which caused a reasonable fear that, if the defendant did not perform the crime, either he or a third person would suffer imminent death or serious bodily injury. One cannot use duress as a defense
to an intentional homicide.
Insanity: The majority of states use the M’Naghten test.:
The defendant must prove he suffered a
disease of the mind that caused a defect of reason, and as a result he lacked the ability to know the wrongfulness of the actions or understand the nature and quality of his actions.
Durham(or New Hampshire Test): Under this test, a defendant is entitled to acquittal if the crime was the product of their mental illness(that is, the crime would not have been committed but for the disease.)
M.P.C Test: A defendant is entitled to acquittal if they had a mental disease or defect and, as a result, they lacked the substantial capacity to either: (1) appreciate the criminality of their conduct; or (2) conform their conduct to the requirements of the law.
Standing
Standing: A person has standing to raise a Fourth Amendment challenge if he has an expectation of privacy in the thing searched or seized.
4th Amendment: Arrests and Detentions
Fourth Amendment: Provides that people should be free from unreasonable searches and seizures
Seizure
Seizure: Any exercise of control by a government agent over a person or thing is a seizure.
What constitutes a seizure: A seizure occurs when under the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person would feel that they were not free to decline the officers request or otherwise terminate the encounter.
When does a arrest occur: An arrest occurs when the police take a person into custody against their will for purposes of criminal prosecution or interrogation.
Probable Cause Requirement: An arrest must be made based on probable cause:
Checkpoints: If special law enforcement needs(Public safety from drunk drivers) are involved the Supreme Court allows police officers to set up roadblocks to stop cars without individualized suspicion that the driver violated some law. To be valid, the roadblock must:
1. Stop cars on the basis of some neutral, articulable standard(every car); and
2. Be designed to serve purposes closely related to a particular problem pertaining to automobiles and their mobility.
A roadblock to test for drunk drivers is valid because of the pervasiveness of the drunk driving problem.
A roadblock to search cars for illegal drugs is not valid, because the purpose of such a checkpoint is only to detect evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing.
Pre-textual Stops
If the police have probable cause to believe a driver violated a traffic law, they may stop the car, even if their ulterior motive is to investigate a crime for which they lack sufficient cause to make a stop.
Detention To Obtain A Warrant
If the police have probable cause to believe that a suspect has hidden drugs in their home, they may, for a reasonable time, prevent the suspect from going into the home unaccompanied so they they can prevent the suspect from destroying the drugs while they obtain a search warrant.
Terry Stop: A brief detention for the purpose of investigating suspicious conduct.
Standard: A police officer may stop a person without probable cause for arrest if they have an articulable and reasonable suspicion of criminal activity
Terry Frisk: A pat-down of the outer clothing and body to check for weapons.
If the officer reasonably believes that the person may be armed and presently dangerous, the officer may conduct a protective frisk.
“Plain Feel” Doctrine: During a pat down, a police officer may reach into the suspects clothing and seize any item that the officer reasonably believes, based on its plain feel, is a weapon or contraband, and such items are admissible as evidence.
4th Amendment Searches and Seizures
The Fourth Amendment generally protects only against governmental conduct
The Fourth Amendment does not protect against privately paid police unless they are deputized as officers of the public police.
Examples of privately paid police: Store security guards, subdivision police, campus police.
To have a Fourth Amendment right, a person must have their own reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to the places searched or the item seized.
Test: The determination is based on the totality of the circumstances, but a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy any time:
1. The person owned or had a right to possession of the place searched
2. The place searched was in fact their home, whether or not they owned or had a right of possession of it; or
3. The person was an overnight guest of the owner of the place searched.
Valid Search Warrant: There are two core requirements for a facially valid search warrant:
1. Probable Cause; and
2. Particularity
Execution of Warrant
Scope of Search: The scope of the search is limited to what is reasonably necessary to discover the items described in the warrant
Knock and Announce Rule: Police must look, announce their purpose and wait for a reasonable time for admittance.
Exception: Unless the officer has reasonable suspicion, based on facts, that announcing would be dangerous or futile or would inhibit the investigation.
Search of Persons: A warrant to search for contraband allows the police to detain occupants of the premises during a search, but does not authorize the police to search persons found on the premises who were not named in the warrant.
Detentions are limited to people in the immediate vicinity of the premises(not people who shortly left earlier)
Exceptions To Warrant Requirement
Searches Incident To Arrest
Rule: Incident to a constitutional arrest the police may search the person and areas into which they might reach to obtain weapons or destroy evidence.(Within the persons wingspan)
Protective Sweep: The police may also make a protective sweep of the area if they believe accomplices may be present.
The search must be contemporaneous in time and place with the arrest
If the arrest is unconstitutional all searches incident to that arrest are also unconstitutional
Gant Rule: The police may conduct a search of the passenger compartment of the automobile incident to arrest only if at the time of the search:
1. The arrestee is unsecured and still may gain access to the interior of the vehicle, or
2. The police reasonably believe that evidence of the offense for which the person was arrested may be found in the vehicle
Search Incident To Incarceration: At the police station, the police may make an inventory search of the arrestees belonging.
Impoundment: Police may make an inventory search of an impounded vehicle including all containers in the vehicle
Arrest Warrant At Third Party Home: Absent exigent circumstance, the police executing an arrest warrant may not search for the subject of the warrant in the home of a third party without obtaining a separate search warrant for the home.
Automobile Exception
Rule: If the police have probable cause to believe that a vehicle contains fruits, instrumentalities, or evidence of a crime, they may search the whole vehicle and any container that might reasonably contain the item for which they had probable cause to search.
This includes the trunk
If car is in public the police may tow it to station and search it later
If it is in the curtilage of the home they may not search it without a warrant.
If the police have probable cause to think the car itself is contraband they may seize it from a public place without a warrant.
Container Rule: If police only have probable cause to search a container in a vehicle such as luggage, they may only search that container, not other parts of the vehicle.
Probable Cause: The probable cause necessary under the automobile exception may arise after the car is stopped, but must arise before anything or anybody is searched.
Plain View Exception
The police may make a warrantless seizure when they:
1. Are legitimately on the premises
2. Discover evidence, fruits or instrumentalities of crime, or contraband
3. See such evidence in plain view; and
4. Have probable cause to believe(it must be immediately apparent) that the item is evidence, contraband, or a fruit or instrumentality of crime.
The police MUST have lawful right to be there
Consent
Rule: A warrantless search is valid if the police have a voluntary consent.
Knowledge of the consent is not a prerequisite to establishing a voluntary consent.
Police saying they have a warrant negates consent
Authority To Consent: Any person with an apparent equal right to use or occupy the property may consent to a search, and any evidence found may be used against other owners of occupants.
Exception: An occupant can not give valid consent when a co-occupant is present and object to the search and the search is directed against the co-occupant.
Evanescent Evidence, Hot Pursuit, Emergency Aid
Evanescent Evidence: Evidence that might disappear quickly if the police took the time to get a warrant.
Example: A police officer can scrape underneath a suspects fingernails without getting a warrant because if the police officer took the time to get a warrant the suspect could wash his hands.
Need warrant before blood sample though
Hot Pursuit: Police in hot pursuit of a fleeing felon may make a warrantless search and seizure and may even pursue the suspect into a private dwelling.
Timing: If the police are not within 15 minutes behind the fleeing felon then it is not a hot pursuit.
Exception: If the feeling person is only suspected for a misdemeanor, their flight does not always justify a warrantless entry into the home.
Emergency Aid Exception: A police officer may enter premises without a warrant if the officer faces an emergency that threatens the health or safety of an individual for the public.
Public School Searches
A warrant or probable cause is not required for public school officials to search public students or their possessions
Standard: Only reasonable grounds for the search are necessary.
Test: A school search will be held reasonable only if:
1. It offers a moderate chance of findings evidence of wrongdoing
2. The measures adopted to carry out the search are reasonably related to the objectives of the search; and
3. The search is not excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student and nature of the infraction
Wiretapping and Eavesdropping
Wiretapping(and other forms of electronic surveillance violating a reasonable expectation of privacy): Constitutes as a search
Unreliable Ear Exception: A speaker assumes the risk that the person to whom they are talking either consents to the government monitoring the conversation or is an informer wired for sound or taping the conversation.
Uninvited Ear Exception: A speaker has no Fourth Amendment claim if they make no attempt to keep a conversation private.
Fourteenth Amendment
Rule: For a self-incriminating statement to be admissible under the Due Process Clause, it must be voluntary, as determined by the totality of the circumstances.
A statement will be involuntary only if there is some official compulsion
Fifth Amendment
Fifth Amendment—right to counsel and right to remain silent: state: “Law enforcement officers are required to read Miranda warnings to a suspect when the suspect is subjected to a custodial
interrogation.
Public Safety Exception: Warnings are not required if the questions are intended to protect
public safety (e.g., to secure weapons after a shooting).
Custody Requirements: Determining whether custody exists is a two step process:
1. “Freedom Movement” Test: Requires the court to determine whether a reasonable person under the circumstances would feel free to terminate the interrogation and leave.
2. Whether the relevant environment presents the same inherently coercive pressures as the type of station house questioning in Miranda
Interrogation Requirement: “Interrogation” includes any word or conduct by by the police that they should know would likely elicit an incriminating response from the detainees.
Thus Miranda warnings aren’t necessary for spontaneous statement by detainee.
A valid Miranda waiver: The suspect must make a “knowing, intelligent, and voluntary” waiver. This is a low bar.
A valid Miranda invocation: For both the right to remain silent and the right to counsel, the suspect must be explicit, unambiguous, and unequivocal in making the request (e.g., “I think I need a lawyer” is not enough).
If a violation occurs: The statements are excluded from the prosecutor’s case-in-chief.The physical fruits are not excluded if the statements were made voluntarily
Sixth Amendment Right To Counsel
Sixth Amendment: Guarantees the right to the assistance of counsel in all criminal proceedings, which include all critical stages of a prosecution after judicial proceedings have begun.
It prohibits the police from deliberately eliciting an incriminating statement from a defendant outside the presence of counsel after the defendant has been charged unless the defendant has waived their right to counsel.
Important Rule: There can be no violation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel before formal proceedings have begun.
Thus a defendant who is arrested but not yet charged does not have a sixth amendment right to counsel but does have a fifth amendment right to counsel under Miranda.
The Sixth Amendment is Offense Specific: Thus, although the defendants Sixth Amendment rights attach to the charge for which they are being held, the defendant may be questioned regarding unrelated, uncharged offenses without violating the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
Waiver: The Sixth Amendment right to counsel may be waived if the waiver is knowing and voluntary
Impeachment: A statement obtained in violation of a defendants Sixth Amendment right to counsel, while not admissible in the prosecutors case-in-chief, may be used to impeach the defendants contrary trial testimony.
Exclusionary Rule
Exclusionary Rule: A judge-made doctrine that prohibits introduction of evidence obtained in violation of a defendants Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth amendment rights.
Fruit of the Poisonous Tree: Under the rule all unconstitutionally obtained evidence as well as all fruit of the poisonous tree must also be excluded unless the costs of excluding the evidence outweigh the deterrent effect exclusion would have on police misconduct.
Exceptions to fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine:
1. The fruits derived from statements obtained in violation of Miranda
- Evidence obtained from a source independent of the original illegality
- Attenuation: Evidence for which the connection between the unconstitutional police conduct and the evidence is remote or has been interrupted by some intervening circumstance so that the casual link between the police misconduct and the evidence is broken
- Inevitable Discovery: The prosecution can shows that the police would have discovered the evidence whether or not the police acted unconstitutionally
- Violations of the knock and announce rule.
Probable Cause
Reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has been committed and that the arrestee has committed it
