Crime 1 Flashcards

Question

Parts of Actues Reus

Answer 1

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

Answer 2

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

Answer 3

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

Answer 4

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

Answer 5

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)

Answer 6

Mistake of Fact, Mistake of Law

Answer 7

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

Answer 8

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

Answer 9

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

Answer 10

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.

Answer 11

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

Answer 12

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.

Answer 13

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.

Answer 14

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

Answer 15

* 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

Answer 16

Common Law Proximate Cause Test

Answer 17

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

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.

Answer 19

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

Answer 20

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)

Answer 21

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?

Answer 22

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.

Answer 23

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.

Answer 24

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

Answer 25

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.

Answer 26

(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.

Answer 27

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

Answer 28

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

Answer 29

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

Answer 30

Statutory (defined by statute) or Any felony +death

Answer 31

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

Answer 32

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

Answer 33

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

Answer 34

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”

Answer 35

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.

Answer 36

* 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

Answer 37

Failure of proof, justification, excuse

Answer 38

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)

Answer 39

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

Answer 40

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

Answer 41

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

Answer 42

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)

Answer 43

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

Answer 44

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

Answer 45

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

Answer 46

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

Answer 47

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

Answer 48

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.

Answer 49

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”

Answer 50

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)

Answer 51

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.

Answer 52

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

Answer 53

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

Answer 54

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

Answer 55

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

Answer 56

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)

Answer 57

Involutary act

Answer 58

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

Answer 59

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

Answer 60

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

Answer 61

* 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

Answer 62

NO mens rea defense, mistake of law, involuntary act

Answer 63

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

Answer 64

* 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

Answer 65

reasonable forseeability

Answer 66

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.

Answer 67

beyond a reasonable doubt

Answer 68

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.

Answer 69

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