Crim Law/Pro Flashcards
husband and friend agreed to kill husband’s wife and split. friend helped the husband obtain a handgun to commit the murder, but on the night of the planned murder, the friend backs out. Afraid that husband would kill her if she went to the police, she did not contact them. Instead, she called husband and told him that she could not go through it/urged him not to. husband ignored her kills wife. husband and friend were subsequently arrested and the friend was charged with conspiracy to commit murder. Should the friend be convicted?
Yes, because withdrawal is not a valid defense to conspiracy.
*remember, always apply the common law (ie pretend MPC doesn’t exist - unless q specifically indicates otherwise)
Derivative-Use Immunity
Protects Witness form use of W’s own testimony, or any evidence derived from testimony, against W in subsequent criminal prosecution -
***but DOES NOT PROTECT him from its use SUBSEQUENT CIVIL SUIT
(ie can be used against him in subsequent CIVIL suit)
law makes it a crime to “knowingly sell, distribute, or barter a sexually explicit film featuring actors younger than the age of majority.”
Owner of adult video store sold explicit videos in her store featuring 18-year-old actors, but took reasonable steps to ensure that no videos featuring younger actors were sold in her store. Owner, however, incorrectly believed that the age of majority in jdx was 18; when in fact..age was 19…. owner arrested & charged w/ violating the statute in a jdx that has adopted MPC. The prosecution does not contest that her error was made honestly. Should she nonetheless be convicted?
No, because the owner’s error negated the requisite mens rea. - didn’t do it knowingly
*remember - always look at the statute when there is one - apply robotically
If a statute does not state the culpable mind applicable to all material elements of the crime, then the mens rea applicable to one material element is applicable to all material elements unless a contrary purpose plainly appears. Consequently, the “knowingly” state of mind is applied to both the “sell, distribute, or barter a sexually explicit film” element and the “featuring actors younger than the age of majority” element. Here, the store owner subjectively did not know that the videos she was selling featured performers below the age of majority; thus, she cannot be convicted under the statute.
if no indication of mens Rea in a statute, what is the minimum mens Rea required?
recklessness
POs have a reasonable suspicion, but not probable cause, that D committed a robbery. pos, acting w/o a warrant, went to d’s home and requested that he come to the station for fingerprinting. D refused until they threatened.., reasonably believing that he was not free to deny the officers’ request, accompanied the pos to station, where he was fingerprinted. His fingerprints matched those taken from the crime. Consequently, D was arrested/charged w robbery. At trial, D moved to suppress the fingerprint evidence. Should the judge grant this motion?
Yes, bc pops action constituted unreasonable unlawful seizure and evidence seized as consequence must be excluded
pos could not compel D to come to the station for fingerprinting in the absence of probable cause.
Reasonable suspicion alone is insufficient. A seizure takes place when, in view of all the circumstances, a reasonable person concludes that he is not free to leave. Here, an illegal seizure took place because the police officers lacked probable cause. Consequently, the evidence seized was the poisonous fruit of the defendant’s illegal seizure. Answer choice B is incorrect because the Fifth Amendment privilege applies only to testimonial evidence, and an individual’s fingerprint is not testimonial evidence.
A calligrapher crafted a letter on old paper, and included details that would lead knowledgeable readers to believe written by Thomas Jefferson.
Caligrapher knew letter would attract attention of local collectors. Local collector calls and wants to purchase.
Calligrapher tells purchaser it had come into her hands from a foreign collector who wished anonymity, but made no promises about the authenticity.
Forgery?
False Pretenses?
Forgery - Not liable for forgery - bc the document, by itself, had no apparent legal significance - it was merely purporting to be a letter
However, the calligrapher did commit false pretense bc she obtained the property and title to property, the $5,000, and she had the intent to defraud the collector.
Even though she did not specifically promise anything about the letter’s authenticity, she misrepresented the nature of the letter by saying it was from a collector rather than created by herself; she misrepresented who owned the letter and how she obtained the letter. Those misrepresentations induced the buyer into giving her the money.
answer :not committed forgery, bc the doc had no apparent legal significance, but has committed false pretenses, ***since she misrepresented the *source of the doc
(wrong: .. has not committed false pretenses, since she has made no representation as to authenticity of the document.)
