Crime 1

Question 1

Actus Reus

Answer 1

the act, physical conduct part of the crime

Question 2

Mens Reas

Answer 2

mental state while doing the physical conduct, the intention, the thinking

Question 3

Right to a. jury trial for criminal trial

Answer 3

Trial by jury- right to jury 6th amendment in all criminal proceedings, supreme court clarifies only applies in non-petty offenses, cases that highest possible sentence is greater than 6 months
Always right to a jury in felony case, right in some misdemeanor
Unanimous decision required by jury in criminal case

Question 4

Strict Liability

Answer 4

offenses that does not need mens rea ( knowledge or purpose (intent) just need to break the law
 ex. enters a dwelling at night
o if you enter a dwelling at night you are liable, don’t need to know its at night
 Common ones
o Public welfare offenses
 Selling Alcohol to minor
 Selling contaminated food/drugs to public
 Traffic violations
 Statutory rape
 Certain Weapons possession offenses
o For strict liability you can state defenses not in mens rea realm, but in the voluntary act realm (i.e sleeping walking) that may work but not in mens rea
o Strict liability there is no defenses in mens rea

Question 5

Utilitarian

Answer 5

Type of Punishment Ideology focused on the idea that punishment should serve society, i.e deterrence
o General deterrence (deter others from committing crimes)
o Specific deterrence (deterring the individual from committing crime in the future)
o Incapacitation remove offender from society incapacitating him and all the crimes he might have committed
 Issues with this theory, potential social negative, families being broken apart, community broken apart
Mass incarceration
Based on idea that someone will reoffend, when we do not know if they will
Incarceration, leaves them worse off or teaches them new ways to commit crime
Economic cost of keeping someone incarcerated
Innocent people go to prison
The vacuum theory, you take a drug seller off streets, someone takes their place

Question 6

Rebhabilitation

Answer 6

Type of Punishment based on the idea that someone is incarcerated they get out better and it is better for society making them better to be reintegrated into society and not commit crime

Question 7

Retribution

Answer 7

Type of Punishment based on “eye for an eye”, punishment sorely because the offender deserves it. Morally right that person is punished.
o Even the scales where offenders that think they are better by committing crime
o If you start using punishment to fix society, you create disparities
o Not trying to send a message to others focuses on the individual deserves the punishment
o Issue, claims offenders are moral desert…what about those who need necessities and steal

Question 8

Cannons of Statutory Interpretation

Answer 8

• Criminal statutes have to be strictly construed, with regards to the evil that it is meant to suppress
  o Precedent/case law
  o Prior interpretations of the statute
  o When the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous, there is no room for judicial construction and the courts must give the statute its plain and definite meaning
  o Common law meanings of the words in the statute (dictionary’s, common understand of words, or what did the word mean at the time the statute was made)
  o The statute as a whole, the way words were interpreted in related statutes
  o When the statute is subject to two interpretations, we presume the constitutionality of the statute (that it is constitutionalist)
  o You assume the legislator is operating in good faith
  o Separation of powers, the courts aren’t law makers
  o Legislative intent
  o Case Example : In RE Banks
   Statute:: G.S. 14–202 provides: “Secretly peeping into room occupied by female person.—Any person who shall peep secretly into any room occupied by a female person shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be fined or imprisoned in the discretion of the court.”
• What pieces are vauge? “peep Secretly”.. how is secretly defined
  occupied by female person, does that mean intending to see a female person or a female person in the room
  They interpret the statute to mean: G.S. 14–202, is sufficiently narrowed by judicial interpretation to require that the act condemned must be a spying for the wrongful purpose of invading the privacy of the female occupant of the room, thereby omitting from its scope those persons who have a legitimate purpose upon another’s property and those who only inadvertently glance in the window of another.

Question 9

Rule of Lenity

Answer 9

If a statute is deemed ambiguous should be interpreted in light favorable to defendant
This rule is Rarely used!!!!

Question 10

Appellate Court Standard of Review

Answer 10

level not high standard, reviewing for whether any rational trier of fact could have found the D guilty beyond reasonable doubt

Question 11

MPC Murder Definition

Answer 11

• A person is guilty of murder if he purposely, knowingly, recklessly, [..] causes the death of another human being

Question 12

Mens Rea requirements for Murder under the MPC

Answer 12

Purposely, knowingly,recklessly, negligently

Question 13

Negligent Homicide

Answer 13

Homicide under the MPC, Criminal homicide constitutes negligent homicide when it is committed negligently.

Question 14

Purposely

Answer 14

Mens Rea under the MPC for murder
A person acts purposely with respect to the nature of his conduct or a result thereof if it is his conscious object to engage in conduct of that nature or to cause such a result. A person acts purposely with respect to attendant circumstance if he is aware of the existence of such circumstances or he believes or hopes that they exists. “With purpose” designed “with design: or equivalent terms have the same meaning

Question 15

Knowingly

Answer 15

Mens Rea under the MPC for murder
* Knowingly A person acts knowingly with respect to the nature of his conduct or the attendant circumstances if he is aware that his conduct is of that nature, or that such circumstances’ exists or he is aware of a high probability of their existence. A person acts knowingly with respect to a result of his conduct if he is aware that it is practically certain that his conduct will cause such a result. “Knowing” “with knowledge” or equivalent terms have the same meaning”

Question 16

Recklessly

Answer 16

Mens rea under the MPC for murder
Recklessly: a person acts recklessly with respect to a material element of an offense when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct [Subjective analysis] The risk must be of such a nature and degree that, considering the nature and purpose of the actor’s conduct and the circumstances known to him its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the actor’s situation [objective analysis with subjective elements]

Question 17

Negligently

Answer 17

Mens rea requirement for Murder under the MPC

Negligently: a person acts negligently with respect to a material element of an offense when he should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct [subjective analysis] The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the actor’s failure to perceive it, considering the nature and purpose of his conduct and the circumstances known to him involves a gross deviation from the standard the care that a reasonable person would observe in the actor’s situation [ objective analysis with subjective elements

Question 18

MPC Manslaughter

Answer 18

Criminal homicide constitutes manslaughter when:
(a) it is committed recklessly; or
(b) a homicide which would otherwise be murder is committed under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance for which there is reasonable explanation or excuse. The reasonableness of such explanation or excuse shall be determined from the viewpoint of a person in the actor’s situation under the circumstances as he believes them to be.

Question 19

Extreme Emotional Disturbance

Answer 19

MPC Manslaughter Mitigation Defense to mitigate murder down to manslaughter
Def: a homicide which would
otherwise be murder is committed under the influence of
extreme mental or emotional disturbance for which there is
reasonable explanation or excuse. The reasonableness of such
explanation or excuse shall be determined from the viewpoint
of a person in the actor’s situation under the circumstances as he believes them to be
Cooling off Period: allows for a cooling off period , can be of a series of traumas or provocations
Mere Words Does not restrict mere words as inadequate to provocation
* (1) the particular defendant must have “acted under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance,” and
* (2) there must have been “a reasonable explanation or excuse” for such extreme emotional disturbance, “the reasonableness of which is to be determined from the viewpoint of a person in the defendant’s situation under the circumstances as the defendant believed them to be.
o Subjective internal situation in which D found himself and External circumstances as perceived to the D at the time, however inaccurate the circumstances he believed (how did the defendant perceive the situation)
o If we as reasonable person believe that circumstances would warrant the reaction
* 1= subjective, 2=objective
o Number 1 is it get at if the Defendant is lying to the court of whether they were truly acting under emotional disturbance, did this really get the defendant really upset
o Number 2 then you compare that reaction to what a reasonable person would have reacted

Question 20

1st Degree Murder

Answer 20

A common law form of murder. Murder with malice aforethought and deliberation and premeditation

Question 21

Malice

Answer 21

Mens Rea for 1st degree at common law , there are four types
1. Intent to Kill (includes knowingly)
2. Intent to cause serious physical injury
3. Extreme Recklessness
4. Intent to commit a felony

Question 22

What to look for when deciding premeditation/deliberation for 1st degree murder in common law

Answer 22

• Time to Consider the act
• Time to cool off/reflect after provocation (cold-blooded v. hot blooded)
• Manner in which murder was committed

Question 23

Second Degree Murder

Answer 23

Common law murder, all other intentional murders without malice aforethought

Question 24

Depraved Indifference Murder

Answer 24

Common law murder. Some states use to describe extreme reckless murder* D manifests a depraved indifference to human life such that it rises to level of intentional murder
Test:
Reckless indifference to human life in general
Consciously disregarded a high risk of the probability of death
Putting poison in a well, no intention to kill anyone but you know people will drink from the well and if you know people will drink from the well you have an indifference to human life

Question 25

Parts of Actues Reus

Answer 25

Conduct: voluntary act or culpable omission to act (all crimes have a voluntary or omission peice)
o Can only be held criminally responsible if voluntary act
Causation
Result
Attendant Circumstances: Other condition that have to be present along with the other elements at the time of the commission of the crime in order for the defendant to be guilty

Question 26

Voluntary Act

Answer 26

Conscious, willed bodily movement
all crimes involve a voluntary act (or omission),to be held criminally liable need to be voluntary act.

o If someone is coerced , i.e gun to head = voluntary act in which not criminally liable
o Sleepwalk and rob a bank now can make argument involuntary

Question 27

Omissions

Answer 27

Omission to act
General rule: one has no legal duty to aid another person in peril, even when one could do so easily

Question 28

When do we have a duty to rescue under common law

Answer 28

Statutory Duty:when a statute imposes a duty
Putting someone in Peril:o Creates risk to another
o i.e hits another with their car, has a duty to ensure they get medical treatment
Status of Relationship
o i.e Parent to child
o Husband to wife
Contractual Duty
i.e contracted security
Voluntary Assumption of Care
o When one has voluntarily assumed the care of another and as a result secluded the helpless person so that others are prevented from providing care
o There is a duty created: Voluntarily undertaking: i.e someone is drowning and you get in and swim toward them, but then you decide to turn around
 Theory is made victim worse off because everyone thought he person was being taken care of
o Not a duty: Victim is drowning in ocean, you are only person in vicinity but you don’t rescues

Question 29

Is Mens rea a requirement of the crime?

Answer 29

o General rule is read a statute with mens rea requirement
o Legislative history
o If there is a mens rea missing , look at the intention
o Look at the amount of punishment (sentence)
o Look at whether it was a common law crime originally
o Was this crime created after common law?
o Look at the rest of the statute do other places in the statute include mens rea requirements and this one does not …may show that the part of the statute under question the legislator intentionally left out the requirement
o Strict liability is usually for public welfare offense (staples)

Question 30

Mens Rea Mistake Defenses

Answer 30

Mistake of Fact, Mistake of Law

Question 31

Mistake of Fact

Answer 31

Mens Rea Mistake defense:
The mistake negates mens rea

occurs when an actor is unaware of , or mistaken about a fact that makes her act criminal

So as a result of this mistake the actor lacks the mens rea required for the crime and so is not guilty of the crime
I.e D kills victim believing victim is a deer, mistaken fact as to attendant circumstance of human being, when intentionally acting with mens rea thought was shooting a deer not human, therefore I did not have the mens rea as to the attendant circumstances

Question 32

Mistake of Law

Answer 32

A mens rea defense

 General Rule: you made a mistake about what the law is, not a defense, you have to know what the law is you cannot say I did not know what the law is
Has exceptions

Question 33

Mistake of law Excpetions

Answer 33

Exceptions to Mistake of Law is not a defense
* 1. mistaken belief is founded on law or official statement that is determined later that it is invalid or erroneous
o read the statute, interpreted correctly, conduct was in line with the law, then the statute is later found to be invalid and erroneous, cannot go back and prosecute them
* 1. Exception Pg 218, note 2, Reasonable Reliance Exception: interpretation of statute by a public official charged by law with reasonability of interpretation of enforcement of the law
o i.e the district attorney puts out a statement interpreting the law, you rely on that interpretation and then it turns out to be wrong and you get convicted under it
o maybe trying to narrow it to courts or enforce the law (police, district attorneys etc)
* Fair Notice Exception: nothing that would have alerted a resonable person of the need to require into the law(Lambert Case) punishes an omission (failure to act) imposed a duty on basis of status rather than basis of activity
o This is a rare excuse

Question 34

Causation

Answer 34

Element of crime,
Common Law : must includes cause in fact (but for) and proximate cause

But for:But for the D’s voluntary act (or omission) would the result have occurred when it did? (accelerated causation)

Proximate : Whether just or fair to hold the defendant criminally responsible. We ask bout foreseeability of the result.

Question 35

Proximate Cause

Answer 35

o The doctrine of “proximate” or “legal” causation serves the purpose of determining who or what events among those that satisfy the but-for standard should be held accountable for the resulting harm
o Thus, a person or event cannot be a proximate cause of harm unless she or it is an actual cause, but a person or event can be an actual cause without being the proximate cause.
For a defendant’s conduct to be regarded as a proximate cause, the victim’s injury must be a “direct and natural result” of the defendant’s actions

Question 36

Issues of Proximate Cause

Answer 36

o Issues of proximate causation generally arise when an intervening force exists, i.e., when some but-for causal agent comes into play after the defendant’s voluntary act or omission and before the social harm occurs.
o Typically, an intervening cause will be:
o (1) “an act of God,” i.e., an event that cannot be traced back to any human intermediary.
o (2) an act of an independent third party; or
o (3) an act or omission of the victim that assists in bringing about the outcome
* For a defendant’s conduct to be regarded as a proximate cause, the victim’s injury must be a “direct and natural result” of the defendant’s actions
* it is necessary to examine whether there was an intervening cause that superseded the defendant’s conduct such that the causal link between the defendant’s conduct and the victim’s injury was broken.

Question 37

Intervening Causes

Answer 37

Proximate Cause issue
 Look at the intervening act
* Coincidental intervening acts limit liability where unforeseeable:wrong palace wrong time the defendant is not held accountable , severs the causation

• Responsive intervening acts limit liability where unforeseeable and abnormal, usually does NOT sever liability
   Reasonable Foreseeability standard is used to determine whether the intervening cause supersedes and severs the casual link
• If the intervening cause is reasonably foreseeable it does NOT severe the casual link
• If the intervening cause is not resonably foreseeable it does severe the causal link
• Intervening causes insulate liability: If an intervening cause did indeed supersede the defendant’s act as a legally significant causal factor, then the defendant’s conduct will not be deemed a proximate cause of the victim’s injury.

Question 38

Medical Treatment as an Intervening Cause

Answer 38

Proximate Cause
Medical treatment is usually an intervening cause that can cause death of victim, negligent medical treatment will not sever the causal link, d still on hook
 Where as grossly medical treatment will sever the causal link
* i.e you. Break someones nose and the doctor amputates a leg

Question 39

MPC Causation

Answer 39

• Still must have “but-for” causation
  o Ask the same question but
• Actual Result v Intend/Contemplated Result
  o What actually happened vs what the D intended to happen, contemplated result, risk of result
• If the above is very far apart might be a proximate cause issue , was it too remote or accidental to have a just bearing on the actors liability or gravity of his offense

Question 40

Reasonably Forseeability

Answer 40

Common Law Proximate Cause Test

Question 41

Traditional Test

Answer 41

When two defendants, acting independently and not in concert with one another, commit two separate acts, each of which alone is sufficient to bring about the prohibited result, then both may be considered the cause of result

Question 42

MPC Manslaughter

Answer 42

Criminal homicide constitutes manslaughter when:
(a) it is committed recklessly; or
(b) a homicide which would otherwise be murder is committed under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance for which there is reasonable explanation or excuse. The reasonableness of such explanation or excuse shall be determined from the viewpoint of a person in the actor’s situation under the circumstances as he believes them to be.

Question 43

Manslaughter Common Law

Answer 43

without malice or forethought, includes intentional killing in heat of passion, reckless or negligent killing

Question 44

Heat of Passion

Answer 44

Common law defense to murder to mitigate down to Manslaughter, person kills while operating under extreme emotion, fear or anger

Test:
1.1. Was the D subjectively in the heat of passion when he acted? (Subjective)
Was the d actually provoked
Was there an opportunity to cool down? Was the D acting in the heat of the moment?
2. Was the D adequately provoked? (Would a reasonable person in D’s situation have been in the heat of passion in the same circumstances (Objective analysis w/ subject elements)
POV of D as he knows the circumstances.
Subjective elements tend to relate to the gravity of the provocation (physical characteristics or life experience of D that affect the severity of the provocation; And not to specific characteristics of the D that make him more prone to react in extremes
Cooling off Period: Bars this defense
Mere Words: mere words not adequate provocation
* Words +something (an aggressive act; an indication the threat could be real, words +visual cues)

Question 45

MPC Causation as an Element

Answer 45

Still need “but for”/ cause in fact, links proximate cause to mens rea:
the actual result involves the same kind of injury or harm as the probable result
and is not too remote or accidental in its occurrence to have a [just] bearing on the actor’s liability or on the gravity of his offense.”
So the MPC asks us to compare the ACTUAL RESULT and the
INTENDED/CONTEMPLATED/RISKED RESULT
* OR, given HOW DIFFERENT the ACTUAL RESULT was from the
INTENDED RESULT, can we say that the D acted with the level of mens
rea required under the statute?

Question 46

Apparent safety Doctrine

Answer 46

Proximate Cause Doctrine,when a “defendant’s active force has come to rest in a position of apparent safety, the court will follow it no longer.”

Ex.
D threatened the life of V, his spouse. As a consequence, V was forced to leave the house on a freezing night in order to protect herself. V walked to within 200 yards of her father’s home, where she would have been welcome, but she chose to spend the night in the extreme cold, rather than bother her father by entering the house. V froze to death during the night. Clearly, D was an actual cause of V’s death: but for D’s threatening conduct, V would not have gone out into the cold. But, V’s decision to sleep outside was also a but-for cause of her own death. Is D the proximate cause of V’s death? The court in Preslar answered this question in the negative.D did not follow V from their home. When V reached the vicinity of her father’s house, she knew that she could enter and be free from immediate harm. Therefore, her decision to sleep outside constituted a superseding intervening cause.

Question 47

Voluntary Human Intervention Doctrine

Answer 47

Proximate cause doctrin:
A defendant is far more apt to be relieved of criminal responsibility in the case of a “free, deliberate, and informed
o a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent— human agent than in the case of an intervention of a natural force or the actions of a person whose conduct is not fully free.
o V chose to sleep in the cold rather than to enter her father’s home. Her decision was free, deliberate, and with full knowledge of the fact that it was exceedingly cold outside. Under these circumstances, the responsibility for her death is shifted from D to V.
o Similarly, in the case at bar, Keiser made the voluntary decision to return to the vehicle on the roadway, despite the danger that it posed. He could have chosen to remain on the side of the road He chose instead to reenter the roadway, with the danger of standing in the roadway next to an unlit vehicle in the middle of the night being readily apparent.

Question 48

Responsive Intervening cause

Answer 48

Part of proximate cause, the harm results from actions taken in response to the defendant’s conduct, where unforseable
Limits liability where unforeseeable and abnormal

Question 49

Coincidental Intervening Cause

Answer 49

Part of Proximate Cause, harm results because D put victim in wrong place at wrong time
Limits liability when unforeseeable
o such as an assault victim who is attacked by a “knife-wielding maniac” while waiting in the emergency room for treatment of the initial wounds.

Question 50

Factors Considered for Heat of Passion Defense (Common Law)

Answer 50

(1) discovering one’s spouse in the act of sexual intercourse with another; (2) mutual combat; (3) assault and battery. There is also authority recognizing injury to one of the defendant’s relatives or to a third party, and death resulting from resistance of an illegal arrest as adequate provocation for mitigation to manslaughter. Those acts mitigate homicide to manslaughter because they create passion in the defendant and are not considered the product of free will.

Question 51

Test for Depraved indifference Murder

Answer 51

Common law murder in some jurisdictions:
Test:
1. Reckless indifference to human life in general
2. Consciously disregarded a high risk of the probability of death
Ex.
Putting poison in a well, no intention to kill anyone but you know people will drink from the well and if you know people will drink from the well you have an indifference to human life

Question 52

What is Felony Murder

Answer 52

Common Law murder where D is on the hook for 1st degree murder if committed during the commission or the attempt of a felony

Question 53

What mens rea is needed for felony murder?

Answer 53

Whatever mens rea is needed to prove the underling felony, then the murder becomes strictly liable. If you prove all the elements of the underlining felony you prove the murder

Question 54

What are the 2 kinds of felony murder?

Answer 54

Statutory (defined by statute) or Any felony +death

Question 55

Strict Standard Rule

Answer 55

Rule of Felony Murder, some jurisdictions follow that o Felony murder is not limited to foreseeable deaths. As long as the homicide is the direct casual result of the felony, the felony murder rule applies whether or not the death was the natural or probable consequence of the felony

Question 56

Qualified Standard Rule

Answer 56

Rule of Felony Murder, some jurisdictions follow that felony murder is limited to foreseeable deaths. Felony must be both the “but for” cause and proximate cause, “natural and probable consequences” of death

NJ follows this

Question 57

Concurrance

Answer 57

Rule of Felony Murder, some jurisdictions require o Felony and death must be part of the same continuous transaction. Therefore, there must be a determination of:
 when the felony begin and
 when the felony ends

oIf the death occurs before or after the commission or attempted commission of the felony, the defendant might not be guilty of felony murder

Question 58

Responsibility of the Death for a Co-D

Answer 58

Rule of Felony Murder, some jurisdictions say that D is on hook for any death that occurs during the felony, including death of Co-D. others say D is not on hook for the death of a Co-D
o So if 2 Ds rob a bank and the security guard shoots one of them during the robbery, D is only guilty of the felony murder if the jurisdiction applies the rule to deaths that occur in the course of the felony
o New Jersey- the death must be of someone “other than one of the participants”

Question 59

Affirmative Defense to Felony Murder

Answer 59

o except that in any prosecution under this subsection, in which the defendant was not the only participant in the underlying crime, it is an affirmative defense that the defendant:
* (a) Did not commit the homicidal act or in any way solicit, request, command, importune, cause or aid the commission thereof; and
* (b) Was not armed with a deadly weapon, or any instrument, article or substance readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury and of a sort not ordinarily carried in public places by law-abiding persons; and
* (c) Had no reasonable ground to believe that any other participant was armed with such a weapon,
instrument, article or substance; and’
o (d) Had no reasonable ground to believe that any other participant intended to engage in conduct likely to result in death or serious physical injury.

Question 60

Limits on Felony Muder

Answer 60

• Howard: Inherently dangerous, look at the elements not the facts of what actually happened
• Smith: independent felonious purpose
  o Independent Felonious Purpose
   Even if the felony was included within the facts of the homicide and was integral thereto, a further inquiry is required to determine if the homicide resulted “from conduct for an independent felonious purpose” as opposed to a “single course of conduct with a single purpose.
  o [People v. Ireland (1969) 70 Cal.2d 522, 538–540, 75 Cal.Rptr. 188, 450 P.2d 580] by holding it inapplicable to felonies that are an integral part of and included in fact within the homicide
  o Felony Murder-should not be extended beyond any rational function that it is designed to serve.”
  o So the felony should not be integral to murder itself
  o If the underlying charge would actually be murder cant get around the requirements of murder by using felony murder

Question 61

Types of Defenses

Answer 61

Failure of proof, justification, excuse

Question 62

Failure of Proof

Answer 62

Defense. Failure to prove an element or elements. D provides evidence or argument that prosecution has failed to prove all the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt (didn’t make the peanut butter and jelly sandwhich)

Question 63

Justification

Answer 63

Defense:
o Justification: D argues that even though Prosecutor proved all the elements beyond a reasonable doubt, the D should not be convicted of the crime because the Ds conduct under the circumstances is right and even desirable
 Negates the social harm of the offense making it tolerable or desirable
 I.e self-defense
Self Defense

Question 64

Excuse

Answer 64

Defense
D argues that even though Prosecutor proved all the elements beyond a reasonable doubt, even though conduct wrong, caused unjustifiable harm , conduct was understandable
 Excuse negates moral blameworthiness.
 i.e insanity, I committed the crime it was proven I did something wrong but I didn’t understand at the time I was doing it

Question 65

Self Defense at Common Law

Answer 65

At common law, “ a person who is not an aggressor is justified in using deadly force upon another if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to protect himself from imminent use of unlawful deadly force by the other party”
* Deadly force: usually it means force that is likely or reasonably expected to cause death or serious bodily injury

Question 66

Common Law Self Defense Test

Answer 66

1. There must have been a threat, actual or apparent, of the use of deadly force against the defender
2. The threat must have been unlawful and immediate.
3. The defender must have believed that he was in imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm, and that his response was necessary to save himself therefrom
   a. These beliefs must not only have been honestly entertained, but also objectively reasonable in light of the surrounding circumstances. (subjective and objective test)

Question 67

First Agressor Rule

Answer 67

In self defense in a common law ,cannot be the aggressor to invoke self defense (one cannot invoke self-defense by a self-generated necessity to kill

Question 68

Exception to First Agressor Rule (Common law)

Answer 68

Withdrawal. Only in the event that the agressor communicates to his adversary his intent to withdraw and in good faith attempts to do so is restored to his right of self defense

Question 69

Exception to using deadly force to defend one self under common law

Answer 69

Common law rule “retreat the wall”: ordinarily forbade the use of deadly force by one to whom an avenue for safe retreat was open
* Getting to a safe place, cant go back to fight
* Exception is if you cannot retreat safely

Question 70

How to invoke the common law Withdrawal rule when you are the agressor (Self-Defense)

Answer 70

Removing aggressor status: Good faith, honest withdrawal, and that withdrawal has to be communicated to the other party

Question 71

Can you use deadly force in defense of the home?

Answer 71

yes

Question 72

can you use deadly force in defense of property?

Answer 72

NO

Question 73

Triggering Condition

Answer 73

In a justification defense , circumstances that must exist before an actor will be eligible to act under a justification

Question 74

Triggering Condition Requirements

Answer 74

Justification defenses must have triggering conditions, requirements to those conditions
* (1) it must be necessary to protect or further the interest at stake, and
(2) it must cause only a harm that is proportional or reasonable in relation to the harm threatened or the interest to be furthered.

Question 75

Common Law Self-Defense Elements

Answer 75

At common law, “ a person who is not an aggressor is justified in using deadly force upon another if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to protect himself from imminent use of unlawful deadly force by the other party”

Question 76

Common Law Self Defense Test

Answer 76

1. There must have been a threat, actual or apparent, of the use of deadly force against the defender
2. The threat must have been unlawful and immediate.
3. The defender must have believed that he was in imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm, and that his response was necessary to save himself therefrom
   a. These beliefs must not only have been honestly entertained, but also objectively reasonable in light of the surrounding circumstances. (subjective and objective test)

Question 77

First agressor Rule

Answer 77

Self Defense Rule
Cant be the aggressor to invoke self-defense
* one cannot support a claim of self-defense by a self-generated necessity to kill.
* granted only to those free from fault in the difficulty; it is denied to slayers who incite the fatal attack, encourage the fatal quarrel or otherwise promote the necessitous occasion for taking life.
* fact that the deceased struck the first blow, fired the first shot or made the first menacing gesture does not legalize the self-defense claim if in fact the claimant was the actual provoker.

Question 78

How to withdrawal as the first agressor rule to self defense

Answer 78

Exception to First Aggressor Rule= Withdrawal
* Only in the event that he communicates to his adversary his intent to withdraw and in good faith attempts to do so is he restored to his right of self-defense.
* Removing aggressor status: Good faith, honest withdrawal, and that withdrawal has to be communicated to the other party
* If good faith withdrawal with communication the original victim aggresses they are the aggressor now
* Imminent is different than inevitable, imminent is immediate
* Most states have adopted stand your ground
* Castle doctrine- do not have to retreat in your home

Question 79

Retreat rule

Answer 79

if you can retreat safely should retreat in self-defense case (unless unsafe or in home dont have to)

Question 80

MPC Self-Defense

Answer 80

NJ MPC
Use of Force in Self-Protection. a. Use of force justifiable for protection of the person. Subject to the provisions of this section
and of section 2C:3-9, the use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the actor reasonably believes that such
force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by such other person
on the present occasion.
2: The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary
to protect himself against death or serious bodily harm; nor is it justifiable if:

(a) The actor, with the purpose of causing death or serious bodily harm, provoked the use of force against himself in the same
encounter; or
(b) The actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating or by surrendering
possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that he abstain from any action which he has no duty to take, except that:
(i) The actor is not obliged to retreat from his dwelling, unless he was the initial aggressor ; and
Model Penal Code states, deadly force is not justifiable “if the actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating * * *.” We emphasize “knows” and “with complete safety.” One who is wrongfully attacked need not risk injury by retreating, even though he could escape with something less than serious bodily injury

Question 81

Parts of Actus Reus

Answer 81

o Conduct-Voluntary Act or Omission
Causation
o Result
o Attendant Circumstances
 Other conditions that have to be present along with the other elements at the time of the commission of the crime in order for the defendant to be guilty

Question 82

Voluntary Act

Answer 82

concious, willed body movement

o If someone is coerced , i.e gun to head = still a voluntary act in which not criminally liable (duress defense)

Question 83

Sleepwalking

Answer 83

Involutary act

Question 84

What are the elements of a crime

Answer 84

o Mens Rea- required mental state (most crimes need this but not all like DWI)
o Actus Reus- everything else
o Forbidden Conduct
o Causation
o Result
o Attendant Circumstances
All elements must be met to be convicted of a crime

Question 85

Murder

Answer 85

The defendant purposefully or knowingly causes the death of another human being

Question 86

omission

Answer 86

failure to act. one has no legal duty to aid another person in peril, even when one could do so easily

Question 87

when do we have a duty to act (omission crimes)

Answer 87

• Statutory duty: when a statute imposes a duty
• Putting someone in peril
  o Creates risk to another
  o i.e hits another with their car, has a duty to ensure they get medical treatment
• Status Relationships:
  o Parent to child
  o Husband to wife
• Contractual Duty
• Voluntary assumption of care
  o When one has voluntarily assumed the care of another and as a result secluded the helpless person so that others are prevented from providing care
  o There is a duty created: Voluntarily undertaking: i.e someone is drowning and you get in and swim toward them, but then you decide to turn around
   Theory is made victim worse off because everyone thought he person was being taken care of
  o Not a duty: Victim is drowning in ocean, you are only person in vicinity but you don’t rescues
• Most of these scenarios have been undertaken by law/statute

Question 88

what defenses can you use for strict liability crimes (that weve learned so far)

Answer 88

NO mens rea defense, mistake of law, involuntary act

Question 89

o Issues of proximate causation

Answer 89

generally arise when an intervening force exists, i.e., when some but-for causal agent comes into play after the defendant’s voluntary act or omission and before the social harm occurs.
o Typically, an intervening cause will be:
o (1) “an act of God,” i.e., an event that cannot be traced back to any human intermediary.
o (2) an act of an independent third party; or
o (3) an act or omission of the victim that assists in bringing about the outcome

Question 90

Proximate Cause

Answer 90

• For a defendant’s conduct to be regarded as a proximate cause, the victim’s injury must be a “direct and natural result” of the defendant’s actions
• it is necessary to examine whether there was an intervening cause

Question 91

What is the proximate cause test?

Answer 91

reasonable forseeability

Question 92

is medical care an intervening cause?

Answer 92

o For example, suppose that a defendant stabs a victim and the victim is then taken to a nearby hospital for treatment. If the physician is negligent in providing medical care to the victim and the victim later dies, the defendant is still considered to have proximately caused the victim’s death because it is reasonably foreseeable that negligent medical care might be provided. At the same time, gross negligence or intentional misconduct by a treating physician is not reasonably foreseeable, and would thus break the causal chain between the defendant and the victim.

Question 93

Cause element has to be proved to what standard?

Answer 93

beyond a reasonable doubt

Question 94

Rule of provocationRule of Provocation:

Answer 94

Rule of Provocation:
* 1. There must have been adequate provocation;
* 2. The killing must have been in the heat of passion;
* 3. It must have been a sudden heat of passion—that is, the killing must have followed the provocation before there had been a reasonable opportunity for the passion to cool;
* 4. There must have been a causal connection between the provocation, the passion, and the fatal act.

Question 95

what do you have to prove for felony murder?

Answer 95

all elements of the underlying felony, causal connection with the conduct of the felony to the murder (but for) , then death is strict liability