Crime

Question 1

CL Theft/ Larceny

Answer 1

Trespassory Asportation of personal, tangible property in another’s possession with intent to permanently deprive person of the property.

Question 2

Modern Criminal Codes: extend Larceny offenses

Answer 2

beyond personal, tangible property to include intangible property and services provided by victim.

Question 3

Money is property covered by modern theft sstatutes;

Answer 3

+ Adam intended to steal the money,
intent requirement is satisfied for larceny
= Adam is guilty of theft.

Question 4

Person takes property another has accidentally lost

Answer 4

+ intends to maintain control over it and not return it
== Person is guilty of larceny.

Question 5

Finder’s keeper

Answer 5

is not always true

Question 6

If Adam was aware that Diana dropped it and had sufficient information to locate hers and return it:

Answer 6

When it took the cash and spent it; he committed larceny.

Question 7

If Adam had no identification on whose wallet is:

Answer 7

no larceny.

Question 8

If person finds stranger’s property

Answer 8

+ no person to believe owner can be located then,
== Person not guilty of larceny.

Question 9

Person didn’t intend to permanently deprive owner of the property when he initially exercised control

Answer 9

not larceny.

Question 10

If Adam tried to return it to the stranger, but the stranger has gone, then,

Answer 10

Adam spent the money inside–> not larceny.

Question 11

Larceny by trick

Answer 11

person makes falsehold or misrepresentation to property owner to gain possession of property with intent to permanently deprive owner of it.

Question 12

Person makes falsehood or misrepresentation to property owner to gain possession of property with intent to permanently deprive owner of it.

Answer 12

The fact that the owner voluntarily gave the property doesn’t prevent the larceny by trick.

Question 13

Embezzlement

Answer 13

fraudulent conversion of another’s property by person who then lawfully possesses the property.

Question 14

Embezzlement

Answer 14

defendant had lawful possession of the property at time of conversion

Question 15

Larceny

Answer 15

defendant didn’t have lawful poessession at time of conversion.

Question 16

False pretenses

Answer 16

Person obtains title to property belonging to another through knowing misrepresentation of material fact with intent to defraud.

Question 17

Defraud

Answer 17

The person knows it false
+ causes the person pass the title.

Question 18

Larceny by trick

Answer 18

voluntary transfer of possession of property from owner to thief.

Question 19

False pretenses

Answer 19

Original owner’s voluntary transfer of title to thief.

Question 20

Adam committed guilty of false pretenses because

Answer 20

he obtained title from Edwards’ motorcycle through is representation that his title is materially valid.

Question 21

Receipt of stolen property

Answer 21

person knowlingly receives stolen property with intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property.

Question 22

It doesn’t matter if the customer paid money

Answer 22

for the stolen property.

Question 23

Robbery

Answer 23

Larceny
+ the Taking of the Property from the person or in the presence of another.

Question 24

Adam took money from Bob and Clarice with intent to permanently deprive them of it

Answer 24

Larceny
+ you did so by intimidation
= Robbery

Question 25

Intimidation

Answer 25

Would a reasonable person in the victim’s position have believed she would be subject to imminent bodily injury if she did not relinquish the property?

Question 26

Skimask & lefthand in a jacket.

Answer 26

A reasonable person would believe Adam had a firearm and would shoot if the teller failed to hand over the money.
- Explicit threat is not required.

Question 27

Lesser included offense

Answer 27

offense with all elements completely subsumed within elements of greater offense.

Question 28

CL Burglary

Answer 28

Unlawful breaking and entering of another person’s dwelling at night with intent to commit felony.

Question 29

Burglary today

Answer 29

-may occur day or night.
-defendant’s intent to commit any crime is sufficient.
- can be committed in dwelling or any other building, (e.g., bank).

Question 30

Burglary:

Answer 30

unprivileged entry is sufficient.
- opening an unlocked door without permission.

Question 31

CL: Burglary: Breaking could be constructive

Answer 31

obtaining entry through use of force or fraud.

Question 32

Burglary

Answer 32

perpetrator makes unprivileged entry into another’s home or other building with intent to commit crime inside, even if he fails to consummate other offense once inside.

Question 33

Criminal trespass

Answer 33

persons unprivileged entry or remaining in another’s home or other building.

Question 34

Burglary

Answer 34

at time of unlawful entry or initial decision to remain in home or building, perpetrator had intent to commit another crime inside.

Question 35

Bulgrary

Answer 35

1. Breaking
2. Entering,
3. Dwelling,
4. Of another
5. At night time or day
6. With the intent to commit a felony within.

Question 36

Some jurisdictions
-Battery

Answer 36

nonconsensual, intentional physical contact with another person causing bodily injury.
- Spitting does not qualify.

Question 37

Other jurisdiction
- Battery

Answer 37

Nonconsensual, intentional physical contact with another person
- Spitting ok
- Offensive touching.

Question 38

Threatened battery

Answer 38

A defendant must specifically intend to place another person in reasonable apprehension of an imminent battery.

Question 39

Reasonable apprehension (in battery)

Answer 39

How would a reasonable person in the victim’s circumstances perceive the defendant’s threat.

Question 40

Rape

Answer 40

1. A defendant must use force or threatened force extrinsic to the sex act.
2. Victim must actively resist by words or conduct.

Question 41

Kidnapping

Answer 41

intentional, nonconsensual, and unlawful taking and movement (asportation), even if only a short distance, or confinement of another person.

Question 42

Some additional elements required:

Answer 42

A defendant must have held the victim for a specified unlawful purpose including;
- 1. Ransom or as hostage,
2. Facilitated commission of any felony or flight thereafter.
3. Inflicted bodily injury on or terrorized victim or another,
4. Interfered with performance of government function.

Question 43

Other states:

Answer 43

While not requiring such a purpose, some other aggravating factor is required, such as exposing the victim to a risk of physical injury.

Question 44

Adam did intentionally and nonconsensually transported Bob.

Answer 44

None of the aggravating factors or illicit purposes required under Modern Kidnapping statutes appear.

Question 45

Adam is guilty of unlawful restrain, or false imprisonment, but not kidnapping.

Question 46

MPC kidnapping:

Answer 46

1. Move the victim substantial distance.
2. Confine the victim a substantial period of time.

Question 47

Kidnapping

Answer 47

transporting a motherfucker under threat of force.

Question 48

CL: Arson

Answer 48

the malicious burning of another person’s dwelling.

Question 49

Malice

Answer 49

Defendant acted at least knowlingly or recklessly, as opposed to merely negligently.
- Manifests a reckless disregard of the high risk of fire and or explosion.

Question 50

Burning:

Answer 50

A structure must be charred.

Question 51

Many Jur: Burning

Answer 51

can include lesser harms, including smoke damage.

Question 52

Arson

Answer 52

Malice: intent or with reckless disregard
- outside + inside burning.
- another person living there.
- the person does not actually have to be there at the same time.
- At least 2 people living there.
- It is not arson if you burn a car.
- but it is arson if you burn a mobile home, because ppl can live there.

Question 53

Arson -> change (Goat)

Answer 53

it has to be just a structure.
- doesn’t have to be dwelling.
- if you burn your own building yes. and you are the only one that lives there. (insurance scammers).
- if you accidently burned, and do not put it out: because you want the building to burn: arson.

Question 54

Actual possession

Answer 54

Dominion and control over an item of contraband.
- Having control for a long enough time to actually terminate possession.

Question 55

Constructive possession

Answer 55

Defendant knows he has right to exercise dominion and control over item located somewhere else but doesn’t relinquish right.
- 마약 위치, 키 등.
- when the drug is not in your actual possession, but it is close enough for you to exercise control over it.
- they need to prove that you were aware of the item’s existence or took steps to avoid knowing about it.

Question 56

Constructive possession

Answer 56

Prosecutors must establish both knowledge + control.
- you knew about the drugs in the trunk of your car
+ & you could control them.
–> Then, they can argue you had possession even if you were not physically touching or holding them.
- Just being near the drug is not enough for constructive possession, you need knowledge.

Question 58

Most Jur: Principal:

Answer 58

Directly commits a crime.

Question 59

Most Jur. Accomplice

Answer 59

Aids or abets through encouragement or assistance before, during, or in principals’ flight from committing offense.

Question 60

Accomplice

Answer 60

Criminally liable for any additional crime committed by a principal during the offense if the crime was both;

Question 61

Accomplice: Criminally liable:

Answer 61

1. Natural Probable consequence of primary crime (아마 Foreseeability라고 한 것같음)
2. Committed in furtherance of primary crime.

Question 62

Accomplice

Answer 62

Merely being present and associating with perpetrator when perpetrator commits offense is not ACCOMPLICE.

Question 63

To qualify as Accomplice:

Answer 63

A Person must intend to adi or abet perpetrator in some manner.

Question 64

Person merely present when perpetrator commits offense generally not obligated to

Answer 64

• Prevent perpetrator from committing offense;
• Report perpetrator to authorities after he commits offense.

Question 65

Most jurisdiction: A parent or guardian

Answer 65

has a duty to prevent the minor’s commission of a crime if able to do so.

Question 66

Accomplice

Answer 66

intends to aid or abet principal so offense will succeed.

Question 67

Accomplice

Answer 67

knowlingly provides assistance but doesn’t intend for perpetrator to succeed.

Question 68

Dorothy: (pistol shop clerk) accomplice? YES.

Answer 68

• 1. She knew he would likely use pistol for robbery.
• 2. Charged inflated price.
• 3. Asked for more business from his gang.
     —> Intended to aid or abet robbery.

Question 69

Accessory After the Fact

Answer 69

Person who, after crime’s been committed, offers assistance to principal with intent to keep principal from being detected or apprehended.

Question 70

Mens Rea for an accomplice to Reckless or Negligent Crime

Answer 70

1. Some jur: Defendant can’t be liable.
2. Other Jur & Model Penal Code:
   –> Defendant can be liable if defendant acted with reckless or negligent.

Question 71

A person who offered assistance immediate flight from the scene of the crime
+ knew in advance that the person will commit a crime.

Answer 71

Accomplice.

Question 72

Inchoate Offense

Answer 72

Committed in anticipation of, or in preparation for, a target offense.

Question 73

Target offense

Answer 73

need not to be completed to make defendant guilty.

Question 74

Attempt

Answer 74

beyond mere preparation.

Question 75

MPC: Attempt

Answer 75

Substantial Step test, Dangerous Proximity Test

Question 76

MPC attempt: Substantial Step test:

Answer 76

To be guilty, D must have taken substantial step toward completing target offense.
- 1. Searching for or following the contemplated victim,
- 2. Reconnoiter (정찰하다 답사하다) the place contemplated for the commission of the target crime.
-3 . Possessing materials or instrumentalities to be employed.

Question 77

Dangerous Proximity test

Answer 77

Criminal Liability for attempt arises if the defendant came dangerously close to committing the target offense.

Question 78

Adam committed attempted robbery (새벽 7시에 돈 뽑던 밥에게 접근: 잠복 경찰에게 잡힘)

Answer 78

• 1. He took a substantial step to buy a pistol.
• 2. He was dangerously close to him.

Question 79

Abandonment or renunciation defense

Answer 79

A defendant completely and voluntarily abandoned the attempt before consummating the target offense.

Question 80

Abandonment not Voluntary IF:

Answer 80

1. Unexpected difficulties,
2. Fear of detection,
3. Waiting for a better opportunity.

Question 81

Legal impossibility

Answer 81

A defendant wrongfuly believed that he was attempting to commit a crime when the purported target offense was ntoan actual crime.

Question 82

Factual impossibility

Answer 82

A defendant attempted to commit an actual crime, but some factual circumstance rendered the commission of the crime impossible to consummate.

Question 83

Solicitation

Answer 83

1. Defendant’s request of another person to commit an offense or adi and abet the defendant in committing that offense.
2. Defendant’s intent that the offense actually be committed.
3. The other party says, “I can’t, I am mortally afraid of guns.” 이런 거 상관 없음.

Question 84

Most jur.: dont’ recognize renunciation as a defense to solicitation.

Answer 84

MPC: permits the defense if the defendant persuades the solicited party not to commit the target offense or otherwise prevents its commission under circumstances demonstrating complete and voluntary renunciation.

Question 85

Difference between solicitation and attempt:

Answer 85

Solicitation: just request. That another person commit a crime.

Question 86

Difference between solicitation and attempt

Answer 86

Attempt: request that another person commit a crime
+ some other act: e.g., payment of soliciting party.
is substantial step:
–> Attempt.

Question 87

Double jeopardy clause

Answer 87

Defendant can be convicted of both conspiracy and the target offense. because their elements differ.

Question 88

Conspiracy

Answer 88

merge into the completed offense

Question 89

Conspiracy

Answer 89

Doesn’t merge into the completed offense.
- MERGE with solicitation of the target offense.

Question 90

Conspiracy:

Answer 90

Agreement between 2 or more people to commit a crime.

Question 91

Conspiratorial liability

Answer 91

-Doesn’t require conspirators to commit target crime.
- Doesn’t require conspirators to take a substantial step.

Question 92

Conspiracy: 2 people merely agree to commit offense is NOT conspiracy.

Answer 92

Conspiracy: 2 people agree to commit an offense & at least does OVERT ACT.

Question 93

Overt Act

Answer 93

Some conduct in furtherance of the conspiratorial plan

Question 94

To join a conspiracy:

Answer 94

-Person must intend to join. (joke안 됨)
- Must intend for conspiracy to achieve criminal objective.

Question 95

Bilateral Conspiracy Rule

Answer 95

Can’t be guilty of conspiracy unless he had meeting of minds with at least one other guilty person concerning conspiratorial objective.
- Adam would not be guilty (w/ Undercover cob)

Question 96

Unilateral Conspiracy Rule

Answer 96

Person who honestly believes he is agreeing with another to commit a crime is guilty of conspiracy even if other person never intended to join.
- Adam would be guilty (w/ undercover cob)

Question 97

Adam이 한 짓: 지 혼자 크리스 털고 죽임.+ 죽이기 전에 망봄 (Overt act of conspiracy: surveiling)
Bob이 한 짓: 처음에 한다고 했다가 안 한다고 했음.

Answer 97

Bob: 다 뒤집어 씀 (Robbery+ Murder+ Conspiracy)
- Any member of a conspiracy is guilty of any crime committed in furtherance of it, if the crime is reasonably foreseeable.

Question 98

natural consequence of armed robbey;

Answer 98

the reasonable person can foresee that murder can happen.

Question 99

To withdraw from conspiracy; conspirator must

Answer 99

1. Explicitly notify all other members of the conspiracy of withdrawal; or;
2. engage in some affirmative act effectively communicating unequivocal withdrawal.

Question 100

Effective withdrawal:

Answer 100

1. doesn’t cut off liability for conspiracy.
2. Cuts off liability for crimes committed in furtherance of conspiracy, if after withdrawal.

Question 101

If Bob effectively communicated with Adam about withdrawal (robbery and murder)

Answer 101

Bob is only discharged from Conspiracy; not robbery and murder.

Question 102

Many jur: to prevent conviction of conspiracy he joined, a conspirator must

Answer 102

Renounce conspiracy.

Question 103

Renunciation:

Answer 103

requires conspirator to thwart conspiracy’s success before target offense occurs.
- telling 911.

Question 104

If Bob tells Police Before Adam commit a robbery, then,

Answer 104

Bob has affirmative defense to conspiracy charge.

Question 105

CL: if Adam (murderer) acquitted, Can still Bob convicted?

Answer 105

NO.
Acquittal of all other coconspirators:
- Remaining conspirator can’t be convicted.

Question 106

Most jur: inability to convict a coconspirator due to a personal defense (immunity, incapacity: 외교관이다 등등).

Answer 106

Doesn’t preclude conviction of other coconspirator.

Question 107

Did an officer, official, or private person acting on the official’s behalf engage in Search, Seizure, or Arrest within the meaning of the 4th?

Answer 107

YES. Then, 4th.
No, 4th doesn’t apply.

Question 108

If 4th appky so, Warrant, legally required?

Answer 108

If the officer violated 4th, does it require exclusion of the evidence?

Question 109

4th Search

Answer 109

Officer’s actions must implicate protected privacy or property interests for one or more

Question 110

Officer’s actions must implicate protected privacy or property interest for one or more

Answer 110

1. The person’s body, including words spoken
2. Home, including temporary residences,
3. Papers,
4. Effects (Personal property)

Question 111

Intrusive: Warrant필요

Answer 111

Intrusive GPS on the suspect’s car;
Based on the cellphone location records that reveal a suspect’s movement.

Question 112

Smith’s barn: open field. police

Answer 112

OK without warrant.

Question 113

Real property 4th

Answer 113

Protects home itself and immediate area around it (curtilage).

Question 114

Police looking inside the Smith Barn does not

Answer 114

implicate privacy interest of Smith.

Question 115

4th Reasonable expectation of privacy

Answer 115

+ Society deems worthy of protection.
- Subjective (Smith does not expect)
스미스는 없다. 창문이 다 열려 있어서 안에 마약 다 보인다.
- Plain View.
- Vantage Point.

Question 116

Key considerations for Expectation of Privacy: What steps did a person take to protect an otherwise private area from public view?

Answer 116

S. Ct.: Open fields, individuals lack a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Question 117

No reasonable expectation of privacy in abandoned items

Answer 117

Meth in trash: no warranty needed.
- Exception: police cause individual to abandon item through unconstitutional conduct.

Question 118

Hightech, thermo tech to detect Meth grow in a house:

Answer 118

S. Ct. Unconstitutional Search because it is uncommon technology

Question 119

Use of Common technology

Answer 119

됨. Using binocular to see the open window from a street corner is not an unconstitutional search.

Question 120

Slightest movement of item that they are not allowed to see in a plain view

Answer 120

(unconstitutional) Search.

Question 121

If officer has Probable Cause for evidence inside the working Car (RV)

Answer 121

The officer Mary may seize and search anywhere evidence could be located in. WITHOUT WARRANT.

Question 122

Automobile Exception

Answer 122

Applies to fully functional RVs that are capable of driving away.

Question 123

Warrantless search of RV is

Answer 123

constitutional

Question 124

If RV was inside the curtilage

Answer 124

Officer Mary needs Warrant to search inside RV.

Question 125

Automobile exception

Answer 125

only applies to automobiles on public roads or in other places, such as open fields.

Question 126

If RV became camping car with the laundry hanging

Answer 126

Officer Mary needs search warrant.

Question 127

Automobile Search Incident to Arrest

Answer 127

Officers are permitted, after a lawful arrest, to search a car without a warrant, even with no basis to believe any incriminating evidence would be found.

Question 128

Automobile Search Incident to Arrest

Answer 128

Officers are permitted, after a lawful arrest, to search a car without a warrant, even with no basis to believe any incriminating evidence would be found.

Question 129

Search incident to arrest 목적:

Answer 129

The suspect destroy the evidence, or doesn’t protect police officer and other’s safety.

Question 130

But the officer may not engage in search in the passenger’s compartment

Answer 130

if the suspect was in the police ar and handcuffed in the car; because he doesn’t threat the officer nor destory the evidence.

Question 131

This exception

Answer 131

officers arrest driver for a felony or misdemeanor, including traffice offence

Question 132

If officers have probable cause to arrest but

Answer 132

choose to issue citation, then, this exception doesn’t apply

Question 133

Exception, officer tows the car away and the suspect is in custody

Answer 133

Before the car is towed, officers may search the arrestee’s car as part of an inventory search of the arrestee’s personal property.

Question 134

Constitutional Inventory Search

Answer 134

Conducted pursuant to a preexisting policy of the relevant law enforcement agency –> OK.

Question 135

Constitutional inventory search

Answer 135

occurs on an ad hoc basis rather than based on the established policy
–> Incriminating evidence suppressed under 4th.

Question 136

Plain View Exception

Answer 136

Officers may seize incriminating evidence without a warrant if:
- It’s in plain view from a lawful vantage point.
- It’s incriminaing nature is immediately apparent.
–> The warrant is for guns, but I saw a suitcase full of drugs under the couch:
—> If it is plain view, no warrant needed.

Question 137

Exigent Circumstances Exception

Answer 137

Officers can enter a home without a warrant if they:
- Are in hot pursuit of fleeing felony suspect;
- have reasonable basis to believe that he has entered the home.

Question 138

Exigent Circumstances Exception

Answer 138

Officers can seize evidence without a warrant if officers reasonably believe that it will be destroyed or removed before a warrant can be obtained.

Question 139

Exigent Circum Exception

Answer 139

Upon exigency, any incriminating item found is admissible.

Question 140

Exigent Circumstance Exception

Answer 140

Emergency Aid:
- Officer can enter without warrant
“We got 911 call from this address.I hear someone screaming.”
- Then, any incriminating evidence inside home can be admissible.

Question 141

Search Incident to Arrest Exception

Answer 141

After an officer lawfully arrests a person, the officer may search:
- 1. Arrestee’s personal property (clothing, backpack) in immediate possession
+ immediate area around arrestee:
WINGSPAN.
No warrant needed.

Question 142

Search incident to arrest exception

Answer 142

목적: Promotes officer safety and prevents destruction of evidence.

Question 143

Warrantless Search의 예외:

Answer 143

Digital Data in Phone.

Question 144

경찰: 음주운전:

Answer 144

-피를 뽑는 것은 안 됨.
- Breathalyzer됨.

Question 145

Warrantless: Chickswab

Answer 145

Felony 됨.

Question 146

Protective Sweep

Answer 146

Similar to search incident to arrest.
경찰이 싹 다 털 수 있음.
- If they have reasonable suspicion to believe that human poses threat present.
- 인간이 숨을 정도의 크기는 Search가능.
- 인간이 숨을 수 없는 정도의 공간은 Search불가능.
- 싹 다 털어처먹는 거 같음.

Question 147

Voluntary consent

Answer 147

Totality of circumstances:
- Characteristics of person who gave consent.
- Whether the officer engaged in improper behavior.
- e.g., Demanding suspect permit warrantless search.

Question 148

Search pursuant to a warrant:

Answer 148

only valid if search conducted is within scope of warrant.

Question 149

Consensual search

Answer 149

Valid only if it occurrs within scope of the consent given.

Question 150

Individual: Actual authority to consent:

Answer 150

If she has a right to mutual use of the property.

Question 151

Allowed: Roommate can let police search the common areas.

Answer 151

Not allowed: Roommate cannot let police search my bedroom.

Question 152

Hotel Clerk has no authority

Answer 152

to search the guest’s room.

Question 153

Individual apparent authority to consent:

Answer 153

police reasonably, but mistakenly, believe individual has actual authority to consent.

Question 154

Parole, probation exception

Answer 154

Individuals on probation or parole have a diminished expectation of privacy.

Question 155

Parolees= in state custody.

Answer 155

Police can search without Probable Cause;

Question 156

4th

Answer 156

An officer may arrest a suspect in public based on a probable cause that the suspect has committed a crime without the need for a warrant.

Question 157

Arrest or Search Warrant

Answer 157

Generally only required for an officer to enter a suspect’s home and arrest him there.

Question 158

Search Incident to Arrest Exception

Answer 158

If there is a lawful arrest, an officer may search, without a warrant, the suspect’s person and the immediate vicinity.

Question 159

If officers have an arrest warrant but not search warrant+ and entered the private home to arrest a suspect;

Answer 159

must have a reasonable basis to believe the suspect is inside the residence before entering.

Question 160

No reasonable basis:

Answer 160

suppression of any evidence seen inside the home.

Question 161

Jones had probable cause to arrest Smith & probable cause to search Smith’s car for Meth.

Question 162

Probable Cause 정의:

Answer 162

A reasonable gound for belief that a suspect committed or is in the process of committing a crime.

Question 163

Probable Cause

Answer 163

Objective Standard.
- Not subjective belief.

Question 164

Pretextual Arrest

Answer 164

Upheld. If they are objectively based on probable cause.

Question 165

Descriptive Information: Smith is making his meth in his RV.

Answer 165

Predictive Information: Smith will drive 10 miles away at lunchtime tomorrow.
He is meeting someone to make meth there.
RS.

Question 166

Reasonable Suspicion

Answer 166

A particularized and objective basis, supported by specific and articulable facts; for suspecting a person of criminal activity.

Question 167

Reasonable suspicion

Answer 167

officer may seize the suspect temporarily and ask a limited number of questions.

Question 168

If probable cause doesn’t exist during terry stop

Answer 168

the police must let the suspect go.

Question 169

If the probable cause arises after questions,

Answer 169

officer arrest Smith.

Question 170

Terry Stop

Answer 170

Doesn’t automatically permit an officer to search the suspect.

Question 171

Searching suspect in a Terry stop

Answer 171

The officer must possess independent reasonable suspicion that the suspect is armed.

Question 172

Pretextual stops are permissible

Answer 172

Only relevant issue is whether officer has legal grounds for stop.
not subjective.
Jones had reasonable suspicion because the witness said traffic violation.

Question 173

Search suspect in a Terry stop

Answer 173

1. Officer must possess independent reasonable suspicion that the suspect is armed.
2. The search must be limited to a pat doen (Terry Frisk)

Question 174

Exclusionary Rule

Answer 174

Only criminal case, not civil not immigration cases.

Question 175

Exceptions to Exclusionary Rule

Answer 175

Which have permitted unconstitutionally obtained evidence to be admitted at trials.

Question 176

Standing

Answer 176

only the person whose constitutional rights were violated may exclude 4th Amendment Violation.

Question 177

Commercial Visitor

Answer 177

White:
- Visits another’s home solely to conduct a business transaction.
- Like social guests,
no standing to complain about unconstitutional search.
later even if the searched’ item is used against the commercial visitor
–because the commercial visitor had no privacy or property interest in home.

Question 178

White here,

Answer 178

no standing to move to suppress evidence because he was commercial visitor in lab.

Question 179

Standing: Automobiles

Answer 179

Automobile: Smith것.
Only Smith has standing to invoke exclusionary rule. Not White.
- Smith drugs and lab evidence won’t be admissible against Smith at trial.
At White’s trial, meth evidence comes in.
White is passenger, no interest in CAR.
White can’t invoke the exclusionary rule.

Question 180

Although passenger normally lacks standing to challenge a search;

Answer 180

they have standing to challenge an unconstitutional seizure.

Question 181

Independent Source Exception

Answer 181

Evidence obtained pursuant to a valid warrant can be introduced at trial even if police initially violated the 4th.

Question 182

If an officer engaged in an unconstitutional warrantless search,

Answer 182

an independent source of probable cause unrelated to that provides a constitutional basis for a warrant.

Question 183

Although officer unreasonably searched initial, that doesn’t make the later obtaining search warrant.

Answer 183

Independent source for warrant: informant’s purchase of meth.–> justifies independent source exception.

Question 184

Inevitable Discovery exception

Answer 184

Officers would have inevitably discovered evidence that previously was unconstitutionally searched or seized.

Question 185

Inevitable Discovery Exception

Answer 185

Doesn’t apply based on unconstitutional search or seizure if a constitutional search or seizure would have occurred but for the earlier search or seizure.

Question 186

Inevitably,

Answer 186

In forest, the evidence would have found anyway.

Question 187

Independent source exception

Answer 187

The search that discovered the evidence was legal.
even though a previous, illegal search occurred.

Question 188

Inevitable Discovery Doctrine

Answer 188

The search that discovered the evidence was illegal, but a legal search would have eventually found the evidence.

Question 189

Good faith exception

Answer 189

evidence obtained pursuant to a warrant later found to be invalid can be admissible if police reasonably believed warrant to be valid at the time.

Question 190

Suppression of evidence under the exclusionary rule

Answer 190

shouldn’t occur even if a warrant wasn’t based on probable cause; so long as an objectively reasonable officer could have believed the warrant was valid.

Question 191

Warrant

Answer 191

relied on an informant’s observation of a meth lab on Smith’s property four months beforehand.

Question 192

Good faith exception application

Answer 192

A police officer mistakenly relies on an error in a law enforcement computer system stating that a suspect has a pending warrant when in fact the warrant no longer exists.

Question 193

Because an officer has reasonably relied on a trustworthy source;

Answer 193

the arrest and search incident to arrest don’t provide a basis for suppression of any evidence.

Question 194

Good faith exception application

Answer 194

Officers engage in a warrantless search or seizure that, although later declared unconstitutional by an intervening appellate; court decision, was consistent with a prior appellate decision in effect at that time.

Question 195

Davis v. U.S. : Because the officers followed the existing precedent in searching or seizing evidence without a warrant,

Answer 195

a trial court shouldn’t apply the exclusionary rule.

Question 196

The officers objectively reasonable in relying on sources;

Answer 196

The officers wouldn’t be deterred from violating the 4th because it is deterrence.

Question 197

Deterrence+ the social cost of suppressing reliable evidence of defendant’s guilt are too great.

Answer 197

The exclusionary rule doesn’t apply in those situations.

Question 198

Evidence obtained in violation of the Constitution may be introduced to impeach a testifying defendant.

Answer 198

큄비에서 쌔벼서 고대로 넣어 노음.
impeachment evidence exception

Question 199

Impeachment exception

Answer 199

1. Physical evidence obtained in violation of the 4th
2. Confessions obtained in violation of a defendant’s Miranda Rights.

Question 200

The suppressed evidence

Answer 200

has to be directly contradict the testimony

Question 201

Not testifying in certain cases

Answer 201

Invocation of the privilege may be evidence agains the person invoking it.

Question 202

Criminal prosecution

Answer 202

Invocation of the privilege not be used as evidence against him.

Question 203

5th Privilege applies to

Answer 203

-Police officers’ interrogations of criminal defendants.
- Criminal defendants’ decisions not to testify at trials.
- Those called to testify in civil litigation, administrative proceedings, and legislative hearings,
- Only applies to individuals, not artificial entities.

Question 204

5th Amendment Privilege

Answer 204

The statement must be possibly self incriminating with respect to a present or future criminal case in state or federal court.

Question 205

Some manner of actual or threatened compulsion from a gov authority

Answer 205

in connection with the statement, e.g., use of physical force, psychological coercion, threat of penalty for not speaking.

Question 206

5th

Answer 206

Statement Testimonial.

Question 207

Testimonial statement

Answer 207

Communication about some potentially self incriminating matter.

Question 208

Non testimonial

Answer 208

not for communication purposes.
- 경찰이 라인업 세워놓고 따라 불러봐라: 그것은 Testimonial하지 않음.

Question 209

5th Amendment Privilege applies to

Answer 209

1. Compelled Speech that’s testimonial in nature.
2. Compelled acts, called, acts of production.

Question 210

The act of production is testimonial and potentially incriminating because

Answer 210

it offers implied testimony that the suspect possessed authentic records.

Question 211

Immunity from prosecution

Answer 211

1. Testimony only immunity
2. Derivative Use Immunity
3. Transactional Immunity.

Question 212

Testimony only immunity

Answer 212

Testimony Can’t be used against defendant.
BUT
Evidence derived from testimony can be used.
- Insufficient to remove defendant’s 5th Amendment privilege.

Question 213

Derivative Use Immunity

Answer 213

-Testimony can’t be used against Defendant.
- Evidence derived from testimony can’t be used.
- Should be given at least for 5th.

Question 214

Transactional immunity.

Answer 214

• Def can’t be prosecuted for any offense related to testimony.
  not required that it has to be given.

Question 215

Smith: meth dealer.
Mary Jones investigates Smith for murder of former Associate, White (accomplice of Smith)

Answer 215

White’s body was found on the side of the road.

Question 216

Smith says in ct: “I move to suppress my confession because it was involuntary.” (경찰이 왕따시킨다고 해서 감옥에서 강제로 자백했음)

Answer 216

The courts should suppress Smith’s confession.

Question 217

Use of force to obtain confession

Answer 217

• Renders confession involuntary and inadmissible under 5th Amendment.

Question 218

Deliberate lie about evidence

Answer 218

Doesn’t by itself render the suspect’s confession involuntary.

Question 219

Use of force to get confession e.g.,

Answer 219

1. Deprivation of Sleep,
2. Interrogating while gunshot wound
   –> render a confession involuntary.

Question 220

Miranda: Custodial Interrogation is

Answer 220

inherently coercive.

Question 221

The only way to overcome such coercion is:

Answer 221

-To advise a suspect about certain rights and
-To obtain a valid waiver of those rights before proceeding with questioning.

Question 222

Custody (under Miranda)

Answer 222

1. A person was seized within the meaning of the 4th.
2. The restraint on the person’s liberty was so significant that it contributed to the risk of coercion.

Question 223

Traffic stop:

Answer 223

is not Custody in Miranda purposes.

Question 224

Individuals in Probation, Individuals on Parole

Answer 224

In custody for 4th Amendment purposes.
–> Not Custody in Miranda (5th purposes).

Question 225

Miranda Custody:

Answer 225

-is judged according to an objective standard.
- not by the subjective beliefs of the officer or suspect.

Question 226

Howes v. Fields

Answer 226

Merely being incarcerated in connection with one crime doesn’t automatically place the prisoner in Miranda Custody if police officers interview him in connection with an unrelated crime.

Question 227

Jones threat to move Smith in a smaller room: a more restricted cell and lose your privilege:

Answer 227

Transforms Smith for incarcerations incarcertaion into Miranda Custody.

Question 228

Suppression (under Miranda)

Answer 228

The suspect confesses while in custody; without 1st being read Miranda warnings.

Question 229

Suppression

Answer 229

The Confession is in response to interrogation by the officer.

Question 230

Interrogation

Answer 230

The officer’s words must have been reasonably calculated to obtain an incriminating statement.

Question 231

There was custodial interrogation

Answer 231

No Mirada warnings were given to Smith before he confessed:
His confession is inadmissible under Miranda.

Question 232

Miranda

Answer 232

Defendant doesn’t believe he is being interrogated by police officer

Question 233

We have a warrant for your arrest

Question 234

The conversation was not directed to smith

Question 235

Rhode Island v. Innis

Answer 235

the fact that Smith responded to their words in an incriminating manner doesn’t mean that the officer’s words qualified as an interrogation under Miranda.

Question 236

Component of Miranda Warnings

Answer 236

“you have the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.”

Question 237

Component of Miranda Warnings

Answer 237

“you have the right to an attorney.”

Question 238

Component of Miranda Warnings

Answer 238

“If you cannot afford an attorney one will be provided for you.”

Question 239

S ct. has allowed for “substantial compliance” with Miranda

Answer 239

The warnings were constitutionally sufficient.

Question 240

Florida v. Powell

Answer 240

Additional advertisement adequately conveyed that the suspect could invoke the right to silence during questioning.

Question 241

Miranda Waiver

Answer 241

Knowling, Intelligent, and Voluntary

Question 242

Implicit Waiver

Answer 242

A suspect is advised of his Miranda rights, sufficiently understands them, and then confesses.

Question 243

“Maybe I need an attorney.”

Answer 243

A suspect given Miranda warnings must unambiguously invoke his right to silence or right to counsel for an officer to be prohibited from continuing interrogation.

Question 244

“Maybe I need a lawyer”

Answer 244

Valid, implicit waiver.–> so police can ask qs.

Question 245

If a suspect unambiguously invokes his Miranda Right to Counsel,

Answer 245

any confession thereafter given in response to custodial interrogation is inadmissible.

Question 246

Invocation of the right to counsel

Answer 246

Forever prohibits further interrogation so long as the suspect remains in custody.

Question 247

Invocation of the right to silence

Answer 247

Doesn’t prevent interrogation after significant break 14 even if suspect remains in custody.

Question 248

Confession: Admissible

Answer 248

If given after significant break (14 days) following original interrogation and defendant waives Miranda rights.

Question 249

Confession- Inadmissible

Answer 249

If defendant unambiguously invokes right to counsel and interrogation continues.

Question 250

ReMiranda “I waive my Miranda Rights.”

Answer 250

-1. Any waiver invalid without counsel present.
-2. If defendant is released for at least 14 days then back in custody.
3. The def’s earlier invocation of right to counsel.
4. Doesnt’ prevent new interrogation.

Question 251

Maryland v. Shatzer

Answer 251

So long as a def properly waived his Miranda rights, a confession given during such as renewed interrogation is admissible.

Question 252

Ct: Should suppress Smith’s confession but

Answer 252

Ct: Shouldn’t suppress weapon and testimony.

Question 253

4th Amendment Exclusionary Rule

Answer 253

requires suppression of evidentiary fruits derived from unconstitutional search or seizure.

Question 254

Miranda’s Exclusionary Rule

Answer 254

only a confession obtained in violation o fMiranda should be suppressed. Not fruits.

Question 255

Miranda 2 Step Process (또 배껴 삽입된 부분)

Answer 255

1. Officers interrogate suspect without providing Miranda and get inadmissible confession.
   Then
2. They read again obtain 2nd confession. Admissible?

Question 256

Siebert factor: Plurailty Oponion

Answer 256

2nd confession inadmissible unless Miranda warnings reasonably conveyed that he was free to stop taling not a foregone conclusion after a suspect had already confessed once.

Question 257

Seibert factor: Concurring opinion

Answer 257

did the police deliberately use the Miranda 2 step to get confession?

Question 258

Was the initial pre miranda questioning merely an inadvertent mistake.

Question 259

Right to Counsel

Answer 259

only applies to critical stages of the prosecution

Question 260

Right to counsel

Answer 260

most events in a criminal case after a defendant has been charged.

Question 261

Critical stages

Answer 261

Most post charging events are critical stages (pretrial suppression hearing, trial, sentencing.)

Question 262

6th: Arraignment at Critical Stage?

Answer 262

1. No.
   - Arraignment: perfunctory hearing where defendant informed of charges, not-guilty plea entered.

Question 263

6th Arraignment at Critical Stage?

Answer 263

Yes. Critical stage.
- Defenses or objections must be made or else they will be waived.

Question 264

Precharge lineup:

Answer 264

pretrial identification: no need lawyer because no charge.

Question 265

After charge:

Answer 265

a def must be brought to court and be advised of the complaint by a judge before the 6thAmend right to counsel protects the def.

Question 266

If lineup was after Smith appeared in court, or after charge,

Answer 266

Both lineup and Smith questioning were critical stages that occurred after Smith was charged.
-6th prohibits an officer or agent of the police such as a confidential informant, from deliberately eliciting an incriminating statement after a def has been charged.

Question 267

5th Miranda right to counsel

Answer 267

Requires custodial interrogation.

Question 268

6th Right to counsel

Answer 268

Protects a def who’s been released on bond or otherwise is not in custody.
- Offense specific: charged crime 1,
Uncharged crime 2: confession can’t be suppressed.

Question 269

Gideon v. Wainwright

Answer 269

A criminal def cahrged with a felony offense instate or fed court is constitutionally entitled to an appointed defense attorney if the def can’t afford to retain an attorney.

Question 270

Misdemeanors

Answer 270

a def is entitled to court appointed counsel only if a court imposes at least one day of an actual or suspended sentence of incarceration.

Question 271

If the court declines to appoint counsel for an indigent defendant for a misdemeanor offense;

Answer 271

no jail sentence can be imposed.

Question 272

Ineffective assistance of counsel

Answer 272

the lawyer 1 was deficient in failing to investigate whether the drug was actually illegal.
+ that deficiency prejudiced Smith because there is a reasonable probability that but for deficiency; result would be different.

Question 273

Ineffective assistance of counsel

Answer 273

Outcome 2: Witness testimony supports, “no illegal meth”
Smith’s conviction should be vacated on grounds that his original lawyer provided ineffective assiatance of counsel.

Question 274

6th Effective assistance of counsel

Answer 274

1. Attorney performs deficiently: reasonable competence;
2. Deficiency prejudices the defendant.

Question 275

Bright line:

Answer 275

1. Attorney must advise clients who are not citizens about the potential immigration consequences of taking a guilty plea.
2. Capital case: an attorney must seek out potentially mitigating evidence that might cause a jury to deliver a sentence other than death.
3. Attorneys must inform clients of formal plea offers.

Question 276

Double Jeopardy Clause

Answer 276

prevent successive criminal prosecutions or multiple criminal punishments for the same offense.

Question 277

Successive prosecution

Answer 277

Collateral Estoppel

Question 278

Successive prosecutions

Answer 278

Trying a defendant multiple times for the same offense.

Question 279

Jury bias City A by local newspaper

Answer 279

Ct did not agree that Smith can get a fair trial in that city, and declared mistrial.

Question 280

In city B,”I move to dismiss the indictment under Double Jeopardy Clause.” 안됨.

Answer 280

Jeopardy attaches only when the petty jury sworn in.

Question 281

Attachment of jeopardy

Answer 281

Def is protected by the Double Jeopardy Clause.

Question 282

Smith was never in jeopardy

Answer 282

because jury was not sworn in.

Question 283

Bench trial without a jury

Answer 283

Attachment of Jeopardy:
-1. First witness sworn in.
- 2. Court accepts first item of evidence.

Question 284

When Smith say, “I plead guilty” then,

Answer 284

the court unconditionally accepts, “Your plea is accepted,” then, jeopardy attaches.

Question 285

Retrial constitute double jeopardy?

Answer 285

depends

Question 286

If mistrial was declared on prosecutor’s requests; a mistrial is declared after jeopardy has attached;

Answer 286

Did manifest necessity exist for the mistrial?

Question 287

Did manifest necessity exist for the mistrial?

Answer 287

YES.
– Retrial isn’t barred under the Double Jeopardy Clause.

Question 288

Did manifest necessity exist for the mistrial?

Answer 288

No.

Question 289

If def successfully moves for a mistrial

Answer 289

Manifest necessity exists only if the prosecutor, through misconduct, intentionally goaded the def to move for a mistrial.
–> Double jeopardy attached.

Question 290

If prosecutor successfully moves for a mistrial

Answer 290

–> manifest necessity exists?
- if the basis was misconduct by a def or defense counsel, a manifest necessity existed.

Question 291

If the prosecutor moves for a mistrial because she failed to subpoena a witness or locate evidence;

Answer 291

not manifest necessity; and the def can’t be retried.

Question 292

Double Jeopardy

Answer 292

Prevents successive criminal prosecutions or multiple criminal punishments for the same offense.

Question 294

Are the 2 offenses the same?

Answer 294

1. Each has the same elements then yes.
2. Each offense has at least one element that the other doesn’t have NO.

Question 295

Conduct

Answer 295

Offense 1. Offense 2.
–> doesn’t violate double jeopardy to give separate sentences.

Question 296

Collateral Estoppel

Answer 296

If a judge or jury necessarily acquitted the def on a specific factual ground at the first trial, the gov may not prosecute a second time for a related but different offense, provided a conviction would be inconsistent with that prior factual finding.

Question 297

Double jeopardy clause

Answer 297

only applies to successive prosecutions by the same sovereign.

Question 298

Burden of Proof

Answer 298

Standard that a party seeking to prove a fact must satisfy.

Question 299

Prosecution’s burden of proof

Answer 299

the fact that raises the maximum penalty, except for the fact that a defendant has a prior conviction.

Question 300

Prosecution’s burden of proof

Answer 300

the fact that a defendant had a prior conviction: Preponderance of Evidence

Question 301

Due Process

Answer 301

Trial and appellate courts must enforce the requirement that the prosecution prove each element beyond the reasonable doubt.

Question 302

Appellate Court concludes the prosecution failed to offer sufficient evidence to prove any element beyond a reasonable doubt

Answer 302

-must reverse the defendant’s conviction;
-must remand to the trial court with instructions to render a judgment of acquittal.

Question 303

Martin v. Ohio,

Answer 303

It doesn’t violate due process to place the burden of proof on defendant’s concerning affirmative defenses as opposed to elements of the charged offense.

Question 304

Self Defense is affirmative defense

Answer 304

Trial court’s instructions properly placed the burden to proove self defense to Smith.

Question 305

Mandatory Presumption

Answer 305

It violates due process to instruct a jury on a mandatory presumption.

Question 306

Permissive Presumption:

Answer 306

The court may instruct the jury on permissive presumption

Question 307

Permissive presumption:

Answer 307

Jury may presume an element after finding a predicate fact but need not do so.

Question 308

Permissive Presumption

Answer 308

must contain a rational connection between the fact and the presumed fact.

Question 309

Common permissive presumption

Answer 309

1. Def intended the natural consequences of his actions.
2. Def in possession of recently stolen property; if such possession isn’t explained, was aware that the property was stolen.

Question 310

Due Process: A def may request that the jury be permitted to convict on a “lesser included offense.”

Answer 310

An offense whose elements are a subset of the elements of the charged offense.
–> Attempted rape:로 한 번 풀려났다면 나중에 희생자가 죽어도 Felony murder가 되지 않는다.

Question 311

Due Process

Answer 311

A court must instruct the jury on a lesser included offense if the jury could rationally find the def guilty of the lesser offense.

Question 312

A party who loses at trial court level

Answer 312

Appeal, ask higher court to reverse trial court’s ruling.

Question 313

Chapman v. California

Answer 313

Most Constitutional errors are subject to Harmless error analysis on appeal.

Question 314

Harmless error

Answer 314

Even if appellate court finds constitutional violation, conviction won’t be reversed if prosecution can prove error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Question 315

Appellate Court Decision

Answer 315

the def’s conviction and sentence were surely unattributable to the error.

Question 316

If the prosecution did not meet its burden to prove beyond the reasonable doubt that the constitutional error was harmless;

Answer 316

Reverse the defendant’s conviction or sentence.

Question 317

Structural Error

Answer 317

affects the entire framework of trial.

Question 318

Structural Errors:

Answer 318

1. Biased jury or judge.
2. Denial of the def’s right to counsel or to represent himself.
3. Improperly closing the courtroom to the public.

Question 319

Prosecution can try to convince the appellate court that

Answer 319

Due Process violation was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence at trial.

Question 320

Double jeopardy clause

Answer 320

Prosecution Cannot appeal a jury’s acquittal.
- Lesser included offense constitutes an acquittal on the greater offense for double jeopardy purposes.

Question 321

Prosecution may appeal

Answer 321

1. Pre- Acquittal rulings:
   - Excluding evidence under 4th Amendment’s exclusionary rule.
   - Excluding a def’s confession under Miranda’s exclusionary rule.
2. A trial court’s sentence imposed on a convicted def.

Question 322

6th Amendment

Answer 322

Guarantees the right to a jury trial in state and federal criminal cases for all felony cases and nonpetty misdemeanor cases; Maximum exceeds 6 months in jail.

Question 323

If you are charged with attempted possession of chem with intent to manu meth, which is felony.

Answer 323

Jury = 6 . ok, but it has to be unanimous.

Question 324

The 6th Amendment

Answer 324

requires jurors to find all elements of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

Question 325

Directed verdict

Answer 325

Enhance sentencing:
Jury must find a fact that increases a sentence beyond a statutory maximu.
have a “Gun”–> FACT.”

Question 326

Peremptory challenge to remove black and latino.

Answer 326

No. it is based on race.

Question 327

Peremptory challange

Answer 327

not based on race, ethnicity, or gender.

Question 328

Exclusion from jury service

Answer 328

-display bias against the prosecution or defense해야 하는 요건이 필요함.
-Assumptions of bias based on stereotypes about members of a racial or ethnic group or gender.

Question 329

Batson v. Kenturcky

Answer 329

Nonstriking party must first make a prima facie case of discrimination in the other party’s use of peremptory strike.

Question 330

Court can remove juror for cause.

Answer 330

If juror indicates inability to be fair and impartial.

Question 331

Ct

Answer 331

as long as the biased juror wasn’t actually seated, a def isn’t prejudiced and is therefore not entitled to relief.

Question 332

Capital cases: potential jurors may be removed for cause

Answer 332

indicate categorial opposition to death penalty.
not fore merely expressing reservations.

Question 333

Constitutional rights integral fair trial

Answer 333

1. 6th right to counsel.
2. Right to impartial jury
3. Right to confront witnesses.

Question 334

Confront judge

Answer 334

A def who is in custody is entitled to a prompt determination of probable cause.

Question 335

Determination made within 48 hours

Answer 335

Presumptively Constitutional.

Question 336

Determination within 48 hours

Answer 336

Calvin bears burden of showing determination was wrongfully delayed.
- RIGHT to counsel is not there.
- Even if Calvin is indigent: no lawyer.

Question 337

Determination after 48 hours.

Answer 337

Presumptively Unconstitutional.
GV bears burden of proving existence of emergency justifying delay.

Question 338

Arraignment

Answer 338

formal presentation of charges against def.

Question 339

Arraignment

Answer 339

-often combined with initial probable cause hearing.
- A critical stage if important rights can be lost.

Question 340

IF the state court requires Calvin to demonstrate alibi or affirmative defense, e.g., insanity, otherwise, forfeit defense,

Answer 340

the Arraignment is a critical stage.

Question 341

If the arraignment is perfunctory

Answer 341

the court enters a not guilty plea for Calvin
- not critical stage.
no lawyer.

Question 342

The 5th

Answer 342

no person can be tried for a felony offense except upon indictment by a grand jury.

Question 343

Grand jury

Answer 343

is a jury. A group of citizens entered to investigate crimes and determine whether probable cause exists.

Question 344

Right to a grand jury indictment

Answer 344

hasn’t been incorporated against the states.
so in a state prosecution, there i no right to it.

Question 345

Grand jury proceeding

Answer 345

-Hearsay allowed.
-Allows evidence and testimony that could be suppressed at trial for violating 4th or 5th Amendment rights.

Question 346

5th Amend

Answer 346

Prohibited on Double jeopardy applies to trials only, not preliminary proceeding: Grandjury is ok,

Question 347

Preliminary hearing

Answer 347

Judge determines whether probable cause exists.

Question 348

Grand jury indictment

Answer 348

Def is not entitle to be present, represented by counsel, and to cross examine witnesses.

Question 349

8th Amend

Answer 349

Prohibits excessive bonds but doesn’t require that bond be granted at all.

Question 350

Constitution

Answer 350

requires hearing, outside the presence of the jury, to determine whether a def’s statement were voluntary.

Question 351

Pretrial suppression hearing

Answer 351

Even if judge doesn’t make suppression, Calvin is entitled to instruct jury to suppress his statements based on involuntariness.

Question 352

Clear and convincing evidence

Answer 352

Bond

Question 353

Confrontation Clause

Answer 353

Prohibits prosecution from introducing testimonial hearsay unless out of court declarant was subject to cross examination under oath by the defense.

Question 354

Statements made for purposes other than solving a crime

Answer 354

e.g., emergency. or obtain medical care for the victim:
- are considered non-testimonial and are admissible.
->if they satisfy a hearsay exception.

Question 355

Confrontation Clause

Answer 355

Protects the right to personally confront witnesses.

Question 356

Confrontation Clause

Answer 356

“You may testify without seeing the def upon showing of good cause.”

Question 357

Child can be there only on determination that it’s necessary to protect the child’s well being.

Question 358

Def

Answer 358

have a right to be present at all stages of the case; inclu trial.
- Def can waive the right to be present, such as not showing up, or disruptive manner.

Question 359

Def has a right to wear street clothign and not be restrained in front of the jury so that jury

Answer 359

doesn’t know that he is in custody.

Question 360

Trials open to public. (presumptively)

Answer 360

Ct can close partially.
If compelling interest and after considering reasonable alternatives.

Question 361

Before, the court should warn its risk of pro se:

Answer 361

It is not absolute.

Question 362

Def with mental health issue

Answer 362

-competent to stand trial.
- not competent to represent himself (출제 된 듯)

Question 363

Rights can be revoked

Answer 363

if def abuses right by engaging in an obstructive behavior.

Question 364

After he accepted Plea,

Answer 364

The ct accepted his plea, judged him guilty and sentenced to prison.

Question 365

Due process

Answer 365

for a guilty plea to be a valid basis for a conviction, the record must reflect that the plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.

Question 366

Extortion

Answer 366

obtaining property though a spoen or written threat to do future harm to someone.

Question 367

Extortion

Answer 367

you don’t have to take something from someone’s presence.
- Senegal.
- Future harm

Question 368

Robbery

Answer 368

you have to take it from something from someone’s presence.
- Immediate harm.

Question 369

Receipt of stolen property

Answer 369

문제가 되는 것: Knowling it is stolen.

Question 370

Receipt of stolen property

Answer 370

1. D receives stolen property
2. A thief actually steals the property from its true owner.
3. D knows the property stolen.
4. D intends to permanently deprive the owner of the property.

Question 371

Knowledge in receipt of stolen property

Answer 371

1. Actual, 2. Constructive knowledge.(고가를 너무 싸게 파는 경우임)

Question 372

Robbery : Force

Answer 372

Does not have to happen directly during the taking.
The force can happen at the same time as the robbery itself or the immediate escape.

Question 373

Burglary

Answer 373

CL: Dwelling. (of another).
MPC: any protected sturcture.

Question 374

Battery

Answer 374

application of force to another that results in physical harm or would offend a reasonable persons sense of dignity.

Question 375

Battery

Answer 375

Unlawful force to a persons body.
- It harmed someone.
- It was offensive to a reasonable person not a sensitive little bitch
- Or an extension of their body.

Question 376

Defenses to battery

Answer 376

1. Consent,
2. Self defense (immediate self defense or defense of others).. no retaliation.
3. Preventing a crime from being committed.

Question 377

Criminal Assault

Answer 377

1. Failed battery.
   - You swung at someone but missed. The victim does not have to be aware of the attempted battery.
2. Scaring people.

Question 378

Assault

Answer 378

when you put someone under a reasonable apprehension of contact.
E2 #8: with intent to cause bodily harm: Specific intent.

Question 379

Assault

Answer 379

Words alone is not sufficient.
You need words and that fist.

Question 380

Aggravated assault

Answer 380

1. Intent to rape.
2. Intent to maim
3. Intent to kill or assault on the elderly or child victim.
   - Specific intent. You need to actually be trying to kill someone.

Question 381

Assault with intent to kill and attempted murder

Answer 381

do not merge.
If you fire a gun and it misfires, you can be charged with both aggravated assault and attempted murder.

Question 382

Rape

Answer 382

consent.

Question 383

If intercourse is

Answer 383

1. Forcible, 2) while the victim is asleep or unconscious, or
2. Upon a victim who cannot give consent; mentally incompetent, or
3. by means of deception such as pretending to be someone you are not.
   The def will be liable for rape.

Question 384

Statutory rape

Answer 384

is sexual intercouse btw an adult an adult and a minor who has not reached the age of consent.
- No defense of consent or mistake is allowed for statutory rape.

Question 385

Attempted statutory rape

Answer 385

if you intend to commit statutory rape.

Question 386

Statutory rape

Answer 386

I did not know that she was a minor
–> not a defense.

Question 387

체포할 당사자가 다른 사람 집에 있을 경우: Arrest warrant is for you.

Answer 387

A search warrant for your friend’s house who you are hiding in.

Question 388

체포할 당사자가 다른 사람 집에 있을 경우:

Answer 388

if they don’t have search warrant, they can still arrest you in your friends’ place; but if any evidence of a crime is found there, it will be suppressed.

Question 389

Protective sweeps are made

Answer 389

when agents or officers execute a search warrant or an arrest warrant inside a residence. Now generally agents are looking for people inside the residence who might interfere with the execution of that warrant.

Question 390

Terry stop

Answer 390

Investigatory stop

Question 391

Protective Sweep

Answer 391

인간의 사이즈에 맞는 곳 Search가능.

Question 392

Reasonable Suspicion

Answer 392

supported by articulable facts of criminal activity.

Question 393

More than vague suspicion or hunch

Answer 393

R.S.
- Running from a cop IS enough.

Question 394

Probable Cause (higher standard)

Answer 394

Totality of circumstances that you have committed or are committing a crime
= can arrest you.

Question 395

Terry Stop (lower standard)

Answer 395

Reasonable, Articulable suspicion you are up to some weird shit can stop you and briefly detain while the police investigate.

Question 396

Reasonable suspicion

Answer 396

doesn’t need to be based on an officer’s personal knowledge.

Question 397

Reasonable suspicion

Answer 397

can be based on other officers.
- collective knowledge doctrine.
or an informant’s tip.
(the informant has to be reliable though. A named informant is a lot more reliable than an anonymous 911 call for example.)

Question 398

If an informant (tipster): 9시30분에 그 핑크 플라멩고가 차에서 내릴 거다: 진짜 9시30분이 되니 핑크가 차에서 내림.

Answer 398

Sufficient indicia of Reliability

Question 399

Reasonable suspicion

Answer 399

enough to detain and frisk for weapons.

Question 400

If police are secretly stoppin gyou for another reason,

Answer 400

they can always pull you over if you commit any minor traffice infraction.

Question 401

EG they think you are a drug dealer.

Answer 401

They can get behind you and just follow you for 3 hours to see if you do ONE Rolling STOP. then pull you over.
–> Pretextual stop. OK.

Question 402

Terry stop: how long?

Answer 402

As long as it takes to issue the traffic citation if you are in the car.
–> They are trying to get probable cause.
–> They can’t wait around to try and manufacture it.

Question 403

If it is not a traffic stop

Answer 403

The police have no specified time they can detain you for honestly, but a reasonable time for them to verify their suspicions will be the standard.

Question 404

When police are briefly detaining you in a Terry stop

Answer 404

they can pat the outside of your clothing to check for weapons.
- For officer safety.

Question 405

But if the officer feels sth that they definitely know is a weapon or drugs,

Answer 405

they can pull it out of your clothes.
- Plain Feel Test.
- BUT they can’t reach into your pockets.
- “Could these fuckers really have felt the outline of guns or drugs and known with reasonable certainty that is what it was?”

Question 406

Standing:

Answer 406

Hotel guests (overnight) YES.
Drivers of rented cars YES.
- Possessors of property can contest a search; like people who are carrying a back pack or purse.
- Casual visitors NO.

Question 407

Standing your ground on the back.

Answer 407

Clients not to fuck up our motion to suppress if they get pulled over.

Question 408

A car passenger does not have standing to contest a search

Answer 408

of someone else’s car if they have no ownership interest in the car.

Question 409

They do have standing to contest the BASIS of the original stop

Answer 409

whether there actually was a traffic violation committed; because they themselves were seized when the stop occurred.

Question 410

When Probable Cause exits to search the whole care;

Answer 410

the Closed Containers of the Passenger can be searched too;
not just for officer safety, but because any other rule would unnecessarily dim the ability of the police to enforce the 4th Amend.

Question 411

Privacy Interest

Answer 411

1. The sound of your voice.
2. Your handwriting.
3. Your bank account records
4. Any shit seen open firleds; even if police trespass onto your neighbors land to see it.
5. Shit can be seen from an airplane; helicopter.
6. Open fields; even if they are fenced and police hop the fence.
7. Odor coming from your car
8. The location of your car on a public street. but they cannot secretly GPS track your cr.
9. Thermal imaging on your house while sex. NO.

Question 412

Private Interest때문에 Search안 되는 것

Answer 412

1. Paint on the outside of your car (cops can roll up and scrape this off for an accident investigation. YES
2. DNA samples if someone is arrested for felony. YES.

Question 413

Warrant

Answer 413

must be based on Probable Cause.
- Must be execute without reasonable delay (because Probable Cuase can disappear).

Question 414

Warrant

Answer 414

particular place and items to be seized. The police cannot exceed the scope of the warrant in their search.
- Police looks for assault rifles in my client’s home; the officer opened up a tiny drawer and stared emptying out pill bottles and charged my guy with drugs; NO.

Question 415

Knock and announce rule

Answer 415

Their presence before forcing entry into a home; and then wait a reasonable time before barging in 20 sec unless they fear evidence is being destroyed (toilet flushing) or they think it would be too dangerous to announce their presence

Question 416

Fail knock and announce

Answer 416

will not get the evidence suppressed. It does not trigger exclusionary rule and throw out the evidence.

Question 417

Cops

Answer 417

just simply do not have time to get a warrant or there are reasons why they don’t need one.

Question 418

Search incident to arrest

Answer 418

1. 먼저 Arrest가 정상이면
2. Search: both open and closed spaces. OK.

Question 419

Search Incident to Arrest

Answer 419

Search has to happen at the time of arrest.

Question 420

Even if your cellphone is in SILA search

Answer 420

they need warrant.

Question 421

Plain view

Answer 421

1. lawful vantage point.
2. Physical access lawful (워런트 있어야 함: 길거리에서 경찰이 안에 있는 페인팅을 보고 들어간다? 안 됨).
3. Does the officer have probable cause such that he knows this shit is illegal upon seeing it?

Question 422

Consent to search-

Answer 422

Voluntary, willing, and intelligent
- low IQ dumpster X
- Coercive environment 500 cops show up and surround you X
- Consent만이 능사는 아니다.
Cops can’t think of it as foregone conclusion.

Question 423

When co-occupants with access to the Whole place are present and objecting

Answer 423

Can stop search.

Question 424

When co occupants with access to the whole place are not present

Answer 424

one occupant can allow a search of the whole space.

Question 425

Roommate 1

Answer 425

cannot consent to search Roommate 2’s room because no access.

Question 426

When roommates has partial access,

Answer 426

they can only consent to a search of the “common areas” and their OWN room.
-They can’t consent to search of the other roommate’s room, whether the other roommate is present or not.

Question 427

Landlords and hotel owners

Answer 427

can’t give consent to the police to search your place hotel room.

Question 428

Evanescent Evidence
If evidence can disappear:

Answer 428

police can usually burst in without a warrant or take the physical evidence on scene.

Question 429

Exigent Circumstances/ Community Caretaking function

Answer 429

1. Emergency
2. A search not motivated by a desire to obtain evidence
3. Relationship between the emergency and the search.
   - Search and emergency must be connected and have a mothafucking nexus.

Question 430

Inventory searches

Answer 430

Impounding a car
- Normal police procedure이어야 함.
- They can search the closed containers in it as well.
- They can strip search you before you are admitted into jail.

Question 431

Public school search.

Answer 431

Reasonable suspicion.
YES.
1. Tips.
2. Direct observations that you were breaking rules.
3. Prior history of breaking this particular rule.

Question 432

Public school search. NO.

Answer 432

No Reasonable Suspicion through
1. Just thinking you are a fuck up rule breaker.
2. Rumors.
3. Or simply hanging out with the bad kids.

Question 433

Abandoned property

Answer 433

yes, you can pick it up.

Question 434

Border searches, airport searches

Answer 434

No warrant.
No Reasonable Suspicion needed.

Question 435

Border searches

Answer 435

strip search: needs Reasonable Suspicion.

Question 436

Police check points & roadblocks

Answer 436

YES. for mobility, and safety. every 10 car eg.

Question 437

Wiretap

Answer 437

ALL needs warrant.

Question 438

Exclusionary Rule

Answer 438

4th, 5th, and 6th, Federal Law
- not State Law,
- not grand jury violations
- not civil law
- not parole proceedings.

Question 439

Inevitable discovery

Answer 439

When the police would have discovered the same evidence despite the illegal means they originally used to get it.

Question 440

Difference between Independent source / Inevitable discovery

Answer 440

Independent source - Completely Untainted by the illegal conduct.

Question 441

Intervening Act of Free Will

Answer 441

Defendant themselves will purify the fuck up that happened earlier.

Question 442

Intervening Act of Free Will

Answer 442

If the cops beat up the defendant to confess or illegally arrest him; but then later on the defendant shows up and confesses to everything; this will purify the taint of illegality.

Question 443

Intervening Act of Free Will

Answer 443

Some illegal shit happened but then the defendant’s intervening act “broke the tain” of the illegal act.

Question 444

5th Self incrimination

Answer 444

If you can show a real threat of criminal prosecution in a civil case; you don’t have to answer the question.
- If you don’t assert it right away in a civil hearing, it will be waived at a later criminal hearing.

Question 445

Your failure to testify in civil cases;

Answer 445

there is no constitutional right to remain silent in civil cases.

Question 446

Derivative immunity

Answer 446

you can still be prosecuted.

Question 447

You can be compleeled to testify

Answer 447

if you are granted immunity.

Question 448

When it comes to compelled testimony in front of a grand jury;

Answer 448

they must give you immunity (at the very least derivative) if they are going to force you to give testimonial state.

Question 449

Testimonial statements

Answer 449

establishes the elements of the crime.

Question 450

Grand jury can force you to just repeat the words that someone else said for example

Answer 450

because they can’t really use that while prosecuting you.

Question 451

Grand jury and immunity

Answer 451

they can force you to say random shit but they can’t force you to say or give them any shit that could fuck you over.

Question 452

The gov does not have to give you

Answer 452

full transactional immunity to forc you to testify, only derivative use.

Question 453

If someone is being interrogated during a normal traffic stop

Answer 453

not in custody.

Question 454

If cop walks up to you on the street to ask you questions about a recent string of armed robberies in the area

Answer 454

not in custody

Question 455

If you are being escorted out of your jail cell or at a probation interview

Answer 455

not in custody

Question 456

Voluntarily going to the police station to talk to the cops

Answer 456

not in custody

Question 457

All about whether your freedom of movement is restrained

Answer 457

based on the totality of the circumstances.

Question 458

If they are accusing you of some shit;

Answer 458

interrogated.

Question 459

If they are investigating some shit and you are witness

Answer 459

you are not being interrogated most likely.

Question 460

Voluntary sts

Answer 460

gets in.

Question 461

Waiver of Miranda (Knowing and voluntary)

Answer 461

• They will look at both Mental and Physical Factors: Age, Intelligence, etc.

Question 462

미란다 야부리 (Goat)

Answer 462

1. No miranda-> Bad Confession.
   - If it was un-intentional No miranda,
2. Miranda
3. Good confession
   –> the 3. Good confession (2nd confession) gets in.
   (not tactical)

Question 463

Line up & Show up, or photo ID

Answer 463

to prove a due process violation we need to show improper police influence.

Question 464

How remedy a violation of due process relating to identification?

Answer 464

Exclude in court idenfication if the out of court identification got fucked up somehow by police

Question 465

The prosecution can defeat this exclusion (재판장에서 쟤다 하는 경우)

Answer 465

by showing that the witness had ample & reliable opportunity to view the defendant prior to the identification.

Question 466

Gideon v. Wainwright
- No right to a lawyer

Answer 466

fingerprints,
blood samples.
- no right at parole or probation revocation hearings.

Question 467

Gideon v. Wainwright (lawyer)
- Not at the initial appearance but at either

Answer 467

1. Preliminary hearing.
2. Arraignment
3. Bond hearing.
   YES “Adversarial proceedings” (Goat).

Question 468

6th is not violated if

Answer 468

the jailhouse snitch is just a “listening post” who doesn’t say anything.

Question 469

6th

Answer 469

if the informant is asking questions or even bragging about himself trying to elicit information from def : XXX

Question 470

Ineffective assistance of counsel

Answer 470

1. Representation: objective standard of reasonableness.
2. The client was actually prejudiced;
3. reasonable probability
4. Outcome would have been different if the lawyer hadn’t fucked up.

Question 471

Death penalty case:

Answer 471

the lawyer fails to investigate any mitigatin information about the def: then, ineffective per se.

Question 472

If someone fails to file a notice of appeal or motion to suppress;

Answer 472

ineffective.

Question 473

Not informing a client that if they get a felony they might be deported

Answer 473

ineffective.

Question 474

Excessive bail

Answer 474

Violation of the 8th Amend against cruel and unusual punishment.

Question 475

Doing something like setting a 10 million bail on a 1st time DUI violates the

Answer 475

8th Amen Cruel and unusual punishment provision.

Question 476

Excessive civil forfeiture

Answer 476

violation of the 8th.

Question 477

Grand Jury

Answer 477

Probable Cause Determination.
- Not a trial.
- Grand jury affirms the charges.

Question 478

Brady v. Maryland:

Answer 478

Prosecutors have a duty to hand over all evidence that could be good for the defendant or it will be a Brady violation.
Failure to disclose any exculpatory evidence or impeachment evidence which helps the defen will be due process violation and is grounds for reversal fo the conviction.

Question 479

Brady v. Maryland

Answer 479

Helpful evidence
+ Prejudice from Def not getting it.
= Overturn it. Reverse the conviction.

Question 480

Right to Fair Trial

Answer 480

Def can’t appear in shackles at trial. No excess publicity. Def shouldn’t be wearing prison clothing at trial.

Question 481

Sentencing enhancements

Answer 481

factual.
Jury. not judge.
–> enhancement beyond a reasonable doubt.

Question 482

6th Right to confront witnesses

Answer 482

not really.
- def themselves can actually be removed if they are disruptive.
-

Question 483

Codef: severance of the two trials. not to prejudice you.

Answer 483

co conspirator statement against the defendant will not be admmissible if they are both on trial at the same tiem unless the co conspirator testifies and is subject to cross.

Question 484

Double jeopardy does not apply

Answer 484

1. When the jury is unable to agree on a verdict (hung jury).
2. Retrial after a successful appeal is obviously not a double jeopardy issue. It is new trial.
3. Mistrial for manifest necessity (e.g., if the def develops a weird form of cancer halfway through the trial and has to get an operation).

Question 485

Manifest necessity

Answer 485

It’s when the judge determins the reason for a new trial is SO DAMN IMPORTANT that the double jeopardy clause just cannot attach.
- The proceeding would be insanely unfair to one or both of the parties; so it just can’t go.

Question 486

Double jeopardy truly only attaches when we have 3

Answer 486

1. After convictions,
2. After you are acquitted,
3. After mistrials due to prosecutorial misconduct.

Question 487

Manifest necessity
–> new trial.

Answer 487

1. 2 jurors disappearing randomly.
2. Defense refers to inadmissible shit in opening statement.
   3.A witness was hospitalized for a month.
3. Defense counsel disbarred.
4. Def got cancer.

Question 488

Lesser included offense;

Answer 488

A jury could rationally find the def guilty of the lesser included offense;
you might be charged with aggravated theft over $10,000 v. Regular Theft only $1,000
if there is a dispute on the price of hte goods; you should get the instruction for the lesser included, so longas ther is some evidence that a jury could rationally find you guilty of the lesser included.

Question 489

Ex post facto laws

Answer 489

You can’t have a law shich makes shit that wasn’t illegal. illega after you did it.

Question 490

Cruel and Unusual Punishment 8.

Answer 490

1. Conditions of where they actually have you confined or imprisoned is fucked up.
2. The punishment itself is very harsh.

Question 491

3 Strikes

Answer 491

Not cruel and unusual

Question 492

Death Penalty is not allowed for 3 types of ppl

Answer 492

1. Mentally insane. even if they went insane while on death row. it is still considered unjust to execute a mentally insane person.
2. Someone who is mentally disabled. No IQ level: you need to present evidence to try and prove it.
3. A person under age 18 when crime was committed.
   - Jail for life without the possibility of parole is also not allowed for minors.

Question 493

BoP: prosecution:

Answer 493

Beyond the reasonable doubt.
- Elements of
1. you stole
2. you wore a green hat.
–> not a judge instruction to the jury.
—> Defendant doesn’t have to proof anything

Question 494

Def Burden of Proof:

Answer 494

affirmative defense
- Self defense;
-they must prove it by a preponderance of the evidence.
- Alibi is not affirmative defense.

Question 495

Alibi 나 검사가 저렇게 주장하는데 범죄 현장이 아닌 멕시코에 있었다.

Answer 495

1- Def proves affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence.
2. Prosecution disporvea alibi beyond a reasonable doubt.
- because it is just attacking an element basically and isn’t a true defense.

Question 496

Plain error

Answer 496

defeats waiver.

Question 497

Plain error

Answer 497

affect substantial rights.

Question 498

Harmless error

Answer 498

Error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and did not prejudice the def. the conviction is not overturned.

Question 499

Structural error
non-harmless error

Answer 499

1. Not allowing someone to have a lawyer at trial.
2. Not allowing someone to consult with their lawyer at trial.
3. Having a weird instruction on reasonable doubt that confuses the jurors.
4. Racial discrimination in the jury selection process.
5. Not allowing someone to go pro se.

Question 500

4th 가 침해되지 않았어도

Answer 500

주법이 그것을 늘릴 수 있다. E2 1

Question 501

Arizona v. Gant

Answer 501

The Court held that the mere fact that a driver has been arrested for a traffic violation does not automatically entitle the police to do a complete search of the passenger compartment.
처음에 Probable Cause가 없었던 경우.

Question 502

Cal v. Carney: Police could search the driver’s car without a warrant

Answer 502

if they had Probable Cause to believe that it contained contraband or evidence of crime. 워런트 없이도 됨.
Scope: 그 마약 크기만한 것은 다 됨.

Question 503

Interrogation could occur

Answer 503

Whenever the person in custody is subject to either express questioning or its functional equivalent

Question 504

Interrogation

Answer 504

+ arranging involves sending a parent trust person to speak to the def alone and secretly record; that is interrogation.

Question 505

5th Self incrimination is about
In court identification

Answer 505

• Communications, testimony, not against compulsion which makes a suspect or accused the source of real or physical evidence.

Question 506

Witness standard for 5th

Answer 506

reasonable possibility that she will incriminate herself.

Question 507

6th: Right to be confronted with the witnesses against him.

Answer 507

Confrontation
1. Right to compulsory process.
2. Right to cross examine hostile witnesses.

Question 508

Confrontation prevents

Answer 508

in some cir, the use of one person’s out of court confession against another.

Question 509

S Ct A’s confrontation clause

Answer 509

violated if the confession of B, naming A as a co-participant. even if jury was instructed not to consider. (Bruton)

Question 510

wheer the def who confesses declisnes to take the stand.taeks the stand, denies, confession

Answer 510

opens himself up to the other co-def cross exam about it. there is probably no confrontation clause problem.

Question 511

Prior conviction

Answer 511

gets into sentencing.

Question 512

Malice

Answer 512

Evil intent

Question 513

Aforethought

Answer 513

Premeditation

Question 514

Goat) Rage, fear, passion

Answer 514

downgrade first degree murder to (manslaughter)

Question 515

CL murder–> Manslaughter

Answer 515

1. a man who kills his wife’s lover immediately afer he finds him in bed with her
2. a long term victim of domestic abuse killing their abuser.
3. A victim of battery who uses disproportionate force and goes way too hard an dkills their attacker.
4. Someone who mistakenly believes they are attacked and then ends up killin gsomeon eelse.
5. Someone being taunted or threatend who loses control an dkills someone else.

Question 516

We need a cool

Answer 516

not hot mind for murder.

Question 517

Intent cool mind premeditation

Answer 517

Murder

Question 518

Voluntary intoxication

Answer 518

1st degree murder charge down to a depraved heart murder (a murder committed with recklessness rather than intent).

Question 519

Voluntary manslaughter

Answer 519

Intentional killing committed in the heat of passion.
- provoked.

Question 520

Passion

Answer 520

Upset, Furious, enraged at the time of the killing.

Question 521

Adequate Provocation

Answer 521

1. False arrest.
2. Cheating 현장에서 보는 것.
3. Mutual combat.
4. Extreme batteries, assaults

Question 522

Voluntary manslaughter

Answer 522

more like an argument.
- you are asking the judge to give the jury the possibility to charge you with manslaughter through a jury instruction.
If the jury could find that the cir leading up to your murder would caus a reasonable person to heat up; then the judge will allow you to have the lesser voluntary manslaughter instruction given to the jury.
this gives the jyr a chance to convict you on a way less serious charge than 1st degree murder.

Question 523

Not Adequate Provocation

Answer 523

1. Making fun of someone.
2. Pointing at them.
3. Low level arguments.

Question 524

Words alone

Answer 524

not enough provocation.
real shit has to go down.

Question 525

Imperfect self defense

Answer 525

Provocation
Downgrades murder from 1st degree to Voluntary manslaughter.

Question 526

PPNC.
Pretty Peonies Need Care

Answer 526

-Passion
-Provocation
-No
-Cool-down time

Question 527

Chill

Answer 527

the murderer was no longer in fear; or
no longer angry with the victim.

Question 528

If you intend to commit great bodily harm against someone with a deadly weapon.

Answer 528

First degree murder.

Question 529

Unintentional killing

Answer 529

Depraved Heart Killing.
Second degree murder.

Question 530

Russian Roulette

Answer 530

Anything that is highly reckless will qualify as a depraved heart murder.

Question 531

Involuntary manslaughter

Answer 531

unintentional killings cause through simple negligence.

Question 532

Depraved heart murder

Answer 532

extreme recklessness.

Question 533

MEE: Reckless driving alone is not Reckless Disregard of Human Life.

Answer 533

It should be coupled with the intoxication or other aggravating factors.

Question 534

If someone has a legal duty to act; they do not act; and this results in a death

Answer 534

the most you can be charged with is involuntary manslaughter.

Question 535

Involuntary manslaughter

Answer 535

in the form of negligent homicide is just you being a fucking idiot texting while driving on the highway, leaving your kid in a hot car or not feeding them, falling asleep in a car.

Question 536

Depraved heart murder is

Answer 536

you being a completely insane fucking idiot; that is, smoking crack, drinking, and texting while driving while you know your brakes are completely shot.

Question 537

First time you drive drunk and accidentally hit someone

Answer 537

involuntary manslaughter. negligent homocide.

Question 538

If it is your 4th DUI and you are driving at 120 mph drag racing drunk

Answer 538

this will likely be depraved heart homicide.

Question 539

The line between depraved heart murder and negligent involuntary manslaughter

Answer 539

Depraved heart murder requires an extreme indifference to the value of human life;
- gross negligence involuntary manslaughter requires only wanton and reckless disregard for human life.

Question 540

Involuntary Manslaighter

Answer 540

Junior varsity version of Depraved Heart,
– Malice is just simply not there.

Question 541

Felony murder

Answer 541

Inherently Dangerous Felony

Question 542

Felony muder

Answer 542

you must kill someone even accidentally
while in the process of a mothafucking BARRK felony.

Question 543

BARRK felony

Answer 543

1- Burglary
2- Arson
3. Rape,
4. Robbery
5. Kidnap

Question 544

Felony murder

Answer 544

Murder that happens in the course of an underlying BARRK felony.

Question 545

Felony murder is treated as

Answer 545

1st degree murder when it is charged.

Question 546

The prosecution must actually

Answer 546

prove you committed the underlying offense.

Question 547

Felony murder: Killing itself

Answer 547

must take place during the actual felony or during flight immediately after the felony.

Question 548

Felony murder: I do kidnapping then

Answer 548

I flee the scene and hit someone in my car: that is felony murder.

Question 549

Felony murder

Answer 549

Goat: not restricted to just foreseeable death. so long as the death is a direct result of the felony… you will still be charged with felony murder.

Question 550

Felony murder (Goat)

Answer 550

Even if the person was going to die anyway from (he had congenital heart disease or sth) the heart defect it is still felony murder.

Question 551

Felony murder

Answer 551

You need to be guilty of the underlying felony.

Question 552

If you have a successful defense to the underlying felony

Answer 552

You can’t be charged with Felony Murder.

Question 553

Battery, Assault, Manslaughter

Answer 553

이들은 Underlying Felony가 아님.

Question 554

Armed Robbery Gone Wrong

Answer 554

that results in a death.

Question 555

Are Felon liable for the death of cofelon? Maybe. Approaches: 2
1. In jur which follow the proximate cause rule:

Answer 555

You will be guilty if an innocent party kills another innocent party on accident in the course of your BARRK felony because you set the killing into motion.

Question 556

2. In jurisdictions which follow the agency rule:

Answer 556

You will not be guilty of felony murder because the police and bystanders were not agents of your felony or helping you in anyway.

Question 557

What happens if you kill someone

Answer 557

during a misdemeanor or non- BARRK felony?

Question 558

Misdemeanor manslaughter

Answer 558

When a death occurs accidentally during the commission of
1. Non-BARRK felony OR
2. A misdemeanor (punishable by less than a year in jail).

Question 559

형량이 1년 미만인 짓을 하다가 또는 NON BARRK FELONY짓을 하다가 사람 죽임.

Answer 559

Involuntary manslaughter via the misdemeanor manslaughter doctrine.

Question 560

예. You are speeding 20 miles over the speed limit (a misdemeanor)

Answer 560

you kill someone.
=Involuntary manslaughter.
= Misdemeanor manslaughter.

Question 561

If the problem mentions Misdemeanor…

Answer 561

answer will be Manslaughter.

Question 562

M.M.

Answer 562

Male Models.
Misdemeanor. Manslaughter.

Question 563

Involuntary Manslaughter

Answer 563

1. Criminal negligence.
2. Intent to inflict slight injury.
3. Misdemeanor manslaughter.
4. Failure to act.

Question 564

You need but for causation and proximate causation

Answer 564

to be found guilty of murder.

Question 565

Attempt

Answer 565

Specific intent to do sth combined with behavior which gets you close to doing it.

Question 566

Attempt Element 1:

Answer 566

Def specifically intended to commit the crime.

Question 567

Attempt Element 2

Answer 567

Took a subsequent step beyond mere preparation to commit the crime.

Question 568

Dangerous Proximity Test

Answer 568

You must have completed every fucking step of the crime but get stopped short before it is completed.

Question 569

Dangerous Proximity Attempt

Answer 569

You arrived at the actual place of the crime; with the necessary tools to commit the crime.

Question 570

Attempted Murder

Answer 570

You need to complete the final step before the actual crime to be found guilty under the dangerous Proximity Test.

Question 571

MPC: Substantial Step Test

Answer 571

Wayne LaFave: Substantial Step doesn’t have to be the “final step” before completion of the crime. But it definitely has to indicate that this motherfucker was trying to commit the crime.

Question 572

Ex. Substantial Step

Answer 572

1. Following someone you are trying to attack.
2. Lying in wait in someone’s grandma’s house, even if they dont’ show up.
3. Putting an explosive device in a car but not detonating it.
   –> Final Act that makes you Dangerously close to success.

Question 573

Final act before success (CL)

Answer 573

Big step indicating intent (Modern MPC approach)
- 폭발물 설치등 Final Act빼고는 다 했다.

Question 574

CL: you have to be in a crime scene. (Substantial Step)

Answer 574

you don’t have to have the weapon in your hand.
The intended victim has to be at the crime scene.

Question 575

CL:

Answer 575

Dangerously close to success.

Question 576

MPC

Answer 576

Maybe not dangerously close to success but definitely a step showing the world you are a psychotic motherfucker who is trying to do this crime.

Question 577

Attempted murder requires

Answer 577

intent to murder.

Question 578

No attempted negligence crime.

Answer 578

No attempted felony murder.
No attempted recklessness.

Question 579

Attempted murder of Kyle:

Answer 579

for taking the substantial step of trying to poison him. The fucker was dangerously proximate and took a substantial step I would say, he is guilty of attempt under both tests.

Question 580

Hypo: Kevin tries to poison Kyle, felt bad; and took it out and placed it next to the trash.

Answer 580

Chad, Kyle’s friend; drinks and dies.
–> Chad:
Kevin is still be charged with murder; but under a theory of extreme recklessness depraved heart murder or possibly only manslaughter if the jury finds he only acted with criminal negligence.

Question 581

You cannot withdraw or abandon a completed attempt.

Answer 581

Once you go beyond mere preparation and take a substantial step or get dangerously close: you are guilty.

Question 582

Legal Impossibility

Answer 582

is indeed a defense to a charge of attempt.

Question 583

Legal Impossibility

Answer 583

Let’s say I think it is illegal to go fishing on Sunday.
So I do it anyway, attempting to break the law that doesn’t exist.

Question 584

I can’t attempt to break a law

Answer 584

that doesn’t even exist in the legal system.
So Legal impossibility is a defense to attempt.

Question 585

Conspiracy

Answer 585

1. Agreement with one or more persons,
2. Intent to agree,
3. Intent to pursue an unlawful objective.

Question 586

Common Law: Cops:
Bilateral Approach for agreement

Answer 586

Cops cannot be involved for conspiracy.

Question 587

Under CL, both people actually need to genuinely agree with each other commit an unlawful act.

Answer 587

An undercover cop and def cannot agree to conspire; because the undercover cop is faking agreement to get an arrest. It is not conspiracy. Under common law. ONLY UNDER MPC.
because no meeting of minds.

Question 588

Unilateral conspiracy approach

Answer 588

MPC. secret agent can get to get convictions. OK.
MPC: as long as one person agrees, it doesn’t matter if the other person is pretending to agree such as in a situation with an undercover the first person will be liable for conspiracy under the stricter MPC approach.

Question 589

MPC Conspiracy:

Answer 589

Overt act

Question 590

Overt Act MPC conspiracy

Answer 590

can be . showing up to the place you have agreed to rob, or setting up a meeting about it.
- Noncriminal preparation step.

Question 591

Common Law Conspiracy

Answer 591

Intent to pursue unlawful objective / no cops.

Question 592

MPC Conspiracy

Answer 592

Agreement + any overt act.
Cops allowed.

Question 593

Every member of the conspiracy is liable for the acts of other members so long as they are

Answer 593

1. Foreseeable, and
2. In furtherance of the conspiracy.

Question 594

Even if they don’t know each other, so long as everyone’s act are foreseeable and in furtherance of the conspiracy;

Answer 594

they are all liable and all going down together.

Question 595

The arrest of a single co conspirator

Answer 595

will also not end the conspiracy either.

Question 596

The prosecution must show that the conspirators

Answer 596

intended to agree but also that they intended to commit every element of the offense.

Question 597

Conspiracy: agreement

Answer 597

based on circumstantial evidence.

Question 598

Conspiracy: Corporation

Answer 598

If there are 2 people that work for the same corporation conspiring, then, the corporation can be brought in as the 3rd conspirator and charged if the executive are in on it.

Question 599

We can’t have One agent + One Corp.

Answer 599

We can have 2 agents + One corp.

Question 600

Withdrawal Conspiracy under CL

Answer 600

No.
Under CL, you can’t withdraw from a conspiracy. The moment you idiots agree on sth unlawful, the crime is completed.

Question 601

Although you can’t withdraw from the conspiracy itself under CL

Answer 601

You can withdraw from subsequent crimes that happen later on.

Question 602

How do you withdraw? Conspiracy

Answer 602

Tell everyone. Absolutely fucking everyone else in the conspiracy that you intend to withdraw.
+ CLEAR.
Then you can withdraw from later crimes in the conspiracy.

Question 603

Modern: You can’t withdraw from the actual conspiracy; but you can withdraw from the conspiracy itself,

Answer 603

as long as you withdraw before the overt act happens which is hard to do.
“preparation act” hard to withdraw before this ecause it could be as little as a phone call or scoping out the scene, it doesn’t even have to be criminal.

Question 604

In order to withdraw from later crimes in a conspiracy under MPC,

Answer 604

You must
1. Give timely notice to all other co conspirators (timeley, not after the crime you career criminal) AND
2. You have to really try to take down the conspiracy with an overt act.
- Call 911, warn the victim or Stop the crime itself.
–> you have to truly stop the whole thing.

Question 605

Withdrawing from conspiracy itself

Answer 605

1. CL: NO.
2. MPC:Agreement + preparation act. before Preparation act: you withdraw.

Question 606

Withdrawing from the subsequent crimes

Answer 606

1. CL: you must tell every co conspirator clearly that you are out for good.
2. MPC: you must voluntary renounce the conspiracy and do sth to thrwart the success of the conspiracies purpose. Tell the cops.

Question 607

Telling people + fucking up the conspiracy

Answer 607

magic recipe.

Question 608

Conspiracy Withdrawal

Answer 608

Can’t be by a fear of being caught or flight.

Question 609

Impossibility

Answer 609

is not defense to conspiracy.

Question 610

Solicitation

Answer 610

asking someone else to commit a crime, and intending that they carry it out.

Question 611

Solicitation

Answer 611

you can ask someone
you can encourage them.
you can even hire a fucking hitman on the dark web.

Question 612

Solicitation

Answer 612

Specific intent:
- you must have the actual intent that the crime will be carried out.
- it doesn’t matter whether the person you solicit agrees or not.

Question 613

Crime is completed when asking is done.

Answer 613

Ask and you shall receive violation of the law.

Question 614

Solicitation

Answer 614

Asking + intent that the other person commit the crime.

Question 615

A.I.

Answer 615

1. Ask.
2. Intend.

Question 616

If def asks you to buy illegal drugs off him and truly intends for you to buy them;

Answer 616

he is arrested immediately by an undercover cop and doesn’t have any drugs on him (maybe he forgot them at the house or sth)—— Solicitation.

Question 617

He intended for the undercover to buy the drugs’

Answer 617

it doesn’t matter that the drugs were not there.
The fucker actually meant for it to happen.

Question 618

Solicitation and attempt merge into

Answer 618

complete crime all the time.

Question 619

Solicitation is not attempt because

Answer 619

Asking a hitman to kill someone intending that they kill them is solicitation but just asking fails the dangerously proximate (CL) and substantial step (MPC) test, so it is not attempt.

Question 620

Goat tells Rainbow to rob a bank for $10,000. Then this motherfucker Rainbow actually did it. Who gets charged for robbing a bank?

Answer 620

Both.
- Goat under accomplice liability theory.
- the same as regular charged.
MERGED.

Question 621

Rainbow and Kevin asked Goat to hack into PC, and Goat actually tried to do it;

Answer 621

Rainbow and Kevin will be charged with Attempt, not solicitation.

Question 622

anytime solicitation is combined with another crime;

Answer 622

the other crime absorbs solicitation.

Question 623

If you are charged with conspiracy and solicitation

Answer 623

you will be charged with conspiracy; since solicitation will fall off and merge.

Question 624

Attempt and Conspiracy

Answer 624

do not merge.

Question 625

Conspiracy and completed crime

Answer 625

do not merge.

Question 626

Accomplice

Answer 626

Command, aid, help, ask, encourage someone to commit the crime.
or just help them plan it.

Question 627

Accomplice

Answer 627

intent
- 1. intent to aid.
- 2. Intent that the primary party actually commit the offense.

Question 628

Accomplice

Answer 628

Presence
+ Silent approval
= Not good

Question 629

The principal

Answer 629

does not have to even know the accomplice is helping for the accomplice to be liable.

Question 630

He, 정부, facilitated the shit with the intent to aid the principal (husband killing wife)

Answer 630

Accomplice.

Question 631

Accessory before the fact

Answer 631

Before I commit a crime;

Question 632

Accessory before the fact

Answer 632

before committing.
They assisted, helped, or instructed the principal to commit the crime beforehand.
= the same extent as the perpetrator.

Question 633

Accessory after the fact

Answer 633

help escaping.
The person that has knowledge of another person’s guilt and intentionally tries to help them avoid arrest or conviction.

Question 634

Accessory after the fact

Answer 634

form of hiding someone.
Helping someoen escape;
or giving false information to the police.

Question 635

Accessory after the fact

Answer 635

1. A felony crime was actually completed.
2. The accessory knew about the felony crime.
3. The accessory personally gave adi to the felon to prevent them getting arrested by police or caught or convicted.

Question 636

Obstruction of justice

Answer 636

Being accessory after the fact won’t get you charged with the full crime of the principal.

Question 637

Accessory before the fact did not know that he was helping the fucker so rode for him.

Answer 637

No.

Question 638

Accessory after the fact;

Answer 638

driving everyone and helping them to evade law enforcement.

Question 639

E2 20 Members of protected class

Answer 639

cannot be members of a conspiracy to commit the crime that is designed to protect that class of people.
(statutory rape의 보호 대상 등)
14 Year old girl–> Because of plurality, the man cannot conspire. with the protected girl.
MPC와 다른 점. MPC는 Unilateral man go jail

Question 640

E2 Q 37 Felony Mulder

Answer 640

if Def while he is in the process of committing a felon, kills another (even accident), the killing is murder.
if the killing that took place during commission of the felony was by an innocent party (the customer) and he killed an innocent party (the clerk) then the robber is not responsible.

Question 641

E 2 Q 39 S Ct

Answer 641

8 th Death penalty: the use of the death penalty on def “who does not kill himself, attempt to kill or intent that a killing take place or that letahl force may be employed,” not imposed upon Dawson.

Question 642

Criminal negligence

Answer 642

“conscious disregard of a known danger.”
- Act of omission : involuntary manslaughter (father)

Question 643

Specific intent crime

Answer 643

“Two Special Defenses”
- 1. Getting voluntarily drunk as fuck or intoxicated.
- 2. Mistake of fact Whether reasonable or unreasonable.

Question 644

Intoxication

Answer 644

whether voluntary or involuntary: proper defense to specific intent crimes.

Question 645

Involuntary intoxication

Answer 645

is always defense to any crime; even strict liability crimes. if someone slips 50 hits of acid into your drink for example whatever you do after that is pretty much fair game.

Question 646

Intoxication

Answer 646

is not a defense to reckless crimes.

Question 647

Intoxication may bring

Answer 647

1st degree murder; (premeditation and planning) down to a 2nd degree murder.

Question 648

Mistake

Answer 648

we begin with specific intent mistakes both reasonable and unreasonable.

Question 649

자기 집인 줄 알고 들어갔는데 남의 집

Answer 649

Reasonable mistake; defense to the specific intent crime of burglary.

Question 650

Still can use as a defense.

Answer 650

Unreasonable mistake fact
- You are 50 miles away from your own house.
자기 집인 줄 알고 들어갔는데 남의 집

Question 651

Malice

Answer 651

Reckless disregard of an obvious or high risk that the particular harmful result will occur.
- Common Law Murder
- Arson

Question 652

Mistake is a defense to malice crimes

Answer 652

so long as it is reasonable.

Question 653

Reasonable mistake

Answer 653

defense to malice crimes.

Question 654

Malice: Arson: 산불 낸 것.

Answer 654

Wicked mind; recklessness state of mind를 증명해야 한다.
Defense of reasonable mistake.
-You had a permit.
you tried to burn the bar while condition were safe;
you did. not have the proper wicked mind state of recklessness.

Question 655

General intent crimes

Answer 655

all you had to intent was to do the actual crime itself; not intend any 3rd thing happening. When someone rapes someone for example the prosecution doesn’t have to prove that the person specifically intended a further result beyond the act itself (such as to cause emotional damage)

Question 656

General intent crimes

Answer 656

you just have to have the intent to move your body in a certain way to do the crime no further intent beyond that.

Question 657

Reasonable mistake

Answer 657

Specific intent crime은 Unreasonable mistake까지도 디펜스가 되는 것같고
General intent crime, Malice crime (Arson, Murder)는 Reasonable mistake만 취급하는 것같음.

Question 658

General intent crimes

Answer 658

1. Rape
2. False imprisonment
3. Battery
4. Kidnapping.

Question 659

General intent crimes;

Answer 659

Actus reus + moral culpability.

Question 660

Reasonable mistake negates

Answer 660

Moral culpability.
you shouldn’t be charged with sth if you didn’t understand the situation.

Question 661

General intent crimes

Answer 661

we only care that an actus reus occurred with a morally culpable state of mind (someone raped, or battered) we are not worried about that the def was motivated towards a result like we are in specific intent crimes (i.e., larceyny with intent to deprive permanently)so

Question 662

General intent crime

Answer 662

unreasonable mistake NO 안됨.
Reasonable mistake만 됨.

Question 663

Unreasonable mistake

Answer 663

has actus reus + moral culpability도 있음.
= is considered morally blameworthy and satisfies out test
= so it is not allowed as a defense.

Question 664

Specific intent crime

Answer 664

Actus reus + culpability + the prosecution has to prove such as the intent to commit a felony there in.
–> mistake ? jury will beleive you didn’t intent to commit a felony therein. it is an element.

Question 665

Strict liability

Answer 665

no defense

Question 666

Strict liability crimes

Answer 666

1. Morality
2. Regulation.

Question 667

Attempted Strict liability

Answer 667

1. Attempted Statutory rape;
2. Attempted selling liquor to minors.
   –> your mindset becomes relevant.

Question 668

If you actually commit the crime;

Answer 668

mindset is not relevant at all.

Question 669

MPC

Answer 669

has no specific or general intent crimes.

Question 670

MPC

Answer 670

1. Purposefully
2. Knowingly
3. Recklessly,
4. Negligently

Question 671

Purposefully

Answer 671

you did the crime intentionally.

Question 672

Knowlingly

Answer 672

you had knowledge of a particular fact or were aware of a high probability of the existence of the fact

Question 673

Deliberately avoiding the truth

Answer 673

is not a defense and the prosecution can still circumstantially prove that you were aware of a high probability of the existence of a fact.

Question 674

Recklessly

Answer 674

just a gross and knowing deviation from the standard of care; like negligence +

Question 675

Negligence

Answer 675

you should have known you were deviating from the standard of care and that a certain result would occur;

Question 676

Recklessly

Answer 676

MBE presumes to have at least mens rea of recklessness; so if none is specified; assume that the crime at least requires recklessness. because it would be unfair to punish someone who did not know what they were doing was wrong.

Question 677

M’Naghten Rule

Answer 677

1. Severe Mental Illness
2. Not understanding what you are doing is wrong.
   e.g., Schizophrenia, or Hallucinations.

Question 678

Irresistible Impulse Test

Answer 678

Even though the def knows the act is wrong, his mental defect gives him an overwhelming urge to commit the crime anyway.

Question 679

Durham Test

Answer 679

So long as your conduct was the product of a mental disease or defect at the time of the crime; you escape liability via insanity.

Question 680

Durham Test

Answer 680

drug addict is acting under the influence of a mental disease at the time of the crime; even if it si because they are a drug addict; this is enough to escape liabiluty.
BUT FOR

Question 681

MPC:

Answer 681

1. As a result of mental disease;
2. Def lacked the capacity to either appreciate the criminal nature of his conduct; or
3. Conform his conduct to the requirements of the law.

Question 682

Difference: MPC & M’Naghten Test

Answer 682

Whether you understand it was wrong or not.

Question 683

Under MPC

Answer 683

even if you know it was wrong; if you can’t conform your conduct to the law; like our friend who tried to kill Reagan; you may escape.

Question 684

Under M’Naghten rule

Answer 684

You actually had to not know that shit was wrong.

Question 685

My Dog Nibbles Kale
MDNK

Answer 685

M’Naghten Do Not Know.

Question 686

M’Naghten Rule

Answer 686

You did not know what you were doing was wrong.

Question 687

MPC Rule:

Answer 687

You knew, but you couldn’t conform your conduct to the law.

Question 688

Children under 7

Answer 688

presumed to not have criminal intent

Question 689

With children 7-14

Answer 689

rebuttable presumption of no criminal capacity; the prosecution can try to disprove but the burden is initially against them.

Question 690

Murder

Answer 690

Causation.
- Proximate causation
<–> Too remote.

Question 691

Justification

Answer 691

1. You were under an imminent threat of death or bodily harm which was not your fault.
2. You had no legal alternative to violating the law;
3. You had to do some illegal shit to avoid being hurt.
4. You did not do the illegal shit for any longer than necessary.
   (약간 MEE에 나왔던 Duress와 비슷)

Question 692

Self Defense

Answer 692

1. Non-Deadly Force: you are allowed to use nondeadly force anytime you fear an imminent harm.
2. Deadly force: <–> Deadly force.
   - The majority : you have no duty to retreat.

Question 693

Deadly force: minority approach

Answer 693

you can use deadly force when you believe deadly force is about to be used on you or a 3rd party; AND you have treid to retret first if possible.

Question 694

There is no duty to retreat for those who are:

Answer 694

1. in their own homes;
2. are police officers; &
3. Are being raped or robbed.

Question 695

You can use self defense if you are the aggressor;

Answer 695

but only after you have tried to retreat and told the victim that you are done beating the shit out of them.

Question 696

If you provoke someone into using force against you

Answer 696

SOLELY so you can kill them; you cannot allege self defense as a complete defense.
-e.g., If you tell your wife you cheat on her and she tries to stab you; then you shoot her; this is not allowed; 1st degree murder

Question 697

Can you ver “resist arrest?”

Answer 697

You can use reasonable nondeadly force to resist a police officer in only 2 scenarios:

Question 698

Nondeadly force to resist a police officer;

Answer 698

1. The arrest is unlawful.
2. The arrest is lawful but police are using excessive force adn beating the shit out of you.

Question 699

Defense of Property

Answer 699

No Deadly force to defend property

Question 700

Defense of Property

Answer 700

1. You must make a request for the person to stop fucking with your stuff before yo use force to protect it unless the request would be clearly futile.
2. Force can only be used to prevent the interference against the property not to get it back.

Question 701

Defense of property

Answer 701

If someone is beating your piano with a bat, you cna use nondeadly force against them; but
if they take the piano and are running away from it, you can’t bask them in the back of their head.

Question 702

Duress

Answer 702

1. There is an imminent (and reasonable) chance of serious bodily harm being threatened against the def’s family; or loved ones (IMMINENT).
2. The def is required by the crazy person to commit the crime to avoid the harm.
3. The threat is reasonable and immediate.

Question 703

Duress

Answer 703

1. The Thing has to be fucking happening right now.
2. No future threats.
   BoP: Def has to prove these elements by a preponderance of the evidence.

Question 704

Duress

Answer 704

is a defense to all crimes except murder (regular or attempted).

Question 705

Necessity (Tort)

Answer 705

마을 전체 다 태우기 전에 일단 4번째 집을 태우는 것 등.

Question 706

Private Necessity

Answer 706

usually Trespassing onto someone’s property because you will be subject to harm if you do not or your property will be damaged. OK if it is reasonable.

Question 707

Public Necessity

Answer 707

when your criminal conduct is necessary to prevent some greater harm happening to society; and this is allwoed so long sa the harm is imminent and your conduct is reasonable.

Question 708

In Necessity:

Answer 708

consent is not defense unless the crime itself requires consent as one fo the elements.

Question 709

Implied consent:

Answer 709

sports game only.

Question 710

Rape and Battery as crimes

Answer 710

require a lack of consent within their elements. so consent is a defense to rape and battery charges.

Question 711

Consent

Answer 711

must be given freely; willing, and voluntary as well.

Question 712

The party giving consent must be capable of consent

Answer 712

not mentally unsound;
you can’t fraud someone into giving you consent.

Question 713

Entrapment is

Answer 713

when a def is induced or coerced into committing a crime by a government official that they would not normally have committed otherwise.

Question 714

A state acquires jurisdiction over criminal acts; 2 reasons

Answer 714

1. The crime occurred there.
2. The unlawful result of the crime happened there.

Question 715

Reckless disregard of human life

Answer 715

영아 병원 안 데리고 간 케이스 (종교적 믿음)
–> Defense: no intent to kill.
no depraved heart.
–> 오답: The parents were proximate causation. OK. affirmative to care for a minor child.

Question 716

Reckless

Answer 716

conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustified risk of the element in question.

Question 717

Strict liability

Answer 717

1. They are regulatory in nature
2. They do not involve serious penalties;
3. They involve serious harm to the public
   4) it is easy to determint eht true facts.

Question 718

Strict liability

Answer 718

food, drugs misbranded articles, hunting license requirements.

Question 719

The 3rd party using deadly force to another person’s who are burglarized

Answer 719

the defendant’s home. OK.

Question 720

Smith 17 years old (minor)

Answer 720

can’t get death penalty because juvenile

Question 721

Adults with intellectual disabilities IQ 70 below.

Answer 721

at the time of capital offenses; Categorically ban

Question 722

No death penalty for

Answer 722

adults with mental illness.
Def who is mentally incompetent at the time of the scheduled execution
(doesn’t know what the gov is doing)

Question 723

What if hearing, Defense says, “uncle abused Smith since 8.”

Answer 723

Mitigating Evidence: YES.

Question 724

If Prosecution objects: the evidence doesn’t prove Smith 18 was insane at time of murder

Answer 724

Judge overrules the objection.
The jury will consider the mitigating evidence.

Question 725

Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause

Answer 725

requires the admission of any relevant mitigating evidence offered during the capital sentencing phase.

Question 726

Relevant Mitigating Evidence

Answer 726

Anything relevant to the circumstances of the offense or the def’s background or character that could cause a rational jury to vote against the death penalty.

Question 727

NonCapital Cases

Answer 727

Life imprisonment without Parole.

Question 728

A life sentence without parole is cruel and unusual punishment? (teenager 18)

Answer 728

NO.

Question 729

In non capital cases, Cruel and unusual punishment

Answer 729

Prohibits only grossly disproportionate punishments.

Question 730

A lengthy prison sentence, life sentence without parole,

Answer 730

is not grossly disproportionate except for the rarest of felonies.

Question 731

8th What is grossly disproportionate?

Answer 731

1. Gravity of offense,
2. Criminal record of Def
3. Length of Def’s sentence compared to sentences imposed on the other defs.
4. Convicted of the same or similar offenses in Def’s own jur as well as other jur.

Question 732

1st degree murder teenager was NOT grossly disproportionate for life sentence without parole;

Answer 732

Smith is not cruel and unusual punishment.

Question 733

What if Smith is 17 years old, Life imprisonment without parole?

Answer 733

S. Ct. Depends.

Question 734

Could he receive a sentence of life imprisonment without parole (17 years old)?

Answer 734

-Homicide Offense
-Nonhomicide Offense

Question 735

Nonhomicide Offense

Answer 735

Life imprisonment without parole is categorically prohibited for a def who was a juvenile at the time of the crime.

Question 736

Homicide Offense

Answer 736

A mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without parole for a juvenile def is unconstitutional.

Question 737

8th Amendment

Answer 737

To sentence a juvenile def to life without parole of homicide:
- Jury must consider all relevant mitigating evidence.
- Jury must be given the option of imposing a sentence of less than life imprisonment without parole.

Question 738

Smith high on Meth 18: Could the state convict and punish Smith under 8th for his mere addiction?

Answer 738

No

Question 739

Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause

Answer 739

Prohibits the criminalization of mere drug or alcohol addiction.
Acts: public intoxication, or driving under the influence of drug intoxication: they are under ACTS. It may be criminally punished without violating the 8th.