Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

L1 Law School > Criminal law 1 > Flashcards

Criminal law 1 Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
Civil Procedure 1L flashcards MBE flashcards MPRE flashcards
1
Q

Utilitarian

A

Maximizing overall happiness

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Deterrence

A

prevent repeat offenses (optimal not maximum)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

General deterrence

A

Punish you to deter others

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Special deterrence

A

pressure to released convict / self

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Willingness to commit a crime

A

= benefit – cost (policy: deterrence theory)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Incapacitation

A

rendering criminals harmless to society (Some suggest this is the only reason)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Rehabilitation

A

acquisition of skills to an inmate
-give inmates a leg up versus people who don’t commit crimes
-acquiring skills to better contribute to society

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Retributive/ Denunciative

A

intentional infliction of pain to the extent he deserves (eye for an eye) (non consequentialist – looking back – punishment to fit the crime)
—-Victim vindication= punish as severely as will make the victim feel better
—Social morality

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Expressivism

A

messaging (extend in which the law sends a message to the publiC + society having something to say about morality Rightfulness or wrongfulness of conduct)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

“Utility desert”

A

utilitarian benefits from using retributivism approach (problem of deterrence when it ignores the morals of people (increase chance to commit crimes if you think most punishments don’t fit the crime)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

People v. Superior Court (Du)

A

convicted of voluntary manslaughter (Probation) (Alleged Self defense of shop owner who killed victim/assailant from behind)

Rule: A prison sentence for a crime involving a deadly weapon should not be reduced to probation except in unusual cases where the interests of justice would best be served. (utilitarianism versus retributivism)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Owens v. State

A

convicted of voluntary manslaughter
(drunk guy in car, couldn’t be determined that he had been driving or was going to drive)

Rule: A conviction upon circumstantial evidence alone is not to be sustained unless the circumstances are inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Standards of proof

A

Preponderance of the Evidence
Standard in civil cases
Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
Standard in criminal cases

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Jury Nullification

A

An outgrowth of 2 things in criminal justice:
-Jury does not have to disclose why (court can’t review it)
-Prosecution can’t re-litigate (double jeopardy)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

State v. Ragland

A

Convicted (a verdict of acquittal is final)
(It is a power, not a right - Judge does not tell the jury of nullification rights and “must” find him guilty of the charges)

Rule: The power of a jury to nullify the law is not essential to a criminal defendant’s right to trial by jury.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Immanual Kant’s principle of punishment

A

Retributivism/Denunciative – Keying punishment to some measure moral wrong. Lex talionis – an eye for an eye

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Jeremy Bentham’s 4 rules/canons of proportionality of punishment

A

(1) Value of punishment must not be less in any case than what is sufficient to outweigh that of the profit of the offense
(2) The greater the mischief of the offense, the greater is the expense, which it may be worthwhile to be at, in the way of punishment
(3) Where two offenses come in competition, the punishment for the greater offenses must be sufficient in induce a man to prefer the less
(4) The punishment should be adjusted in such a manner to each particular offense, that for every part of the mischief there may be a motive to restrain the offender from giving birth to it

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Coker v. Georgia

A

Convicted (a verdict of acquittal is final)
(Didn’t get death penalty for raping 16 year old girl even though Georgia had the death penalty for rape)
Rule: The power of a jury to nullify the law is not essential to a criminal defendant’s right to trial by jury.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

8th Amendement

A

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Ewing v. CA

A

Convicted due to prior felonies Recidivism laws
(after two prior convictions, sentenced to life for stealing golf clubs)

Rule: Sentencing a repeat felon to 25 years imprisonment under a state’s three strikes law does not violate the Eighth Amendment prohibition of cruel and unusual

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

One who, with the requisite mental state, __________

A

actually engages in the act or omission that causes the criminal result. Also, anyone who

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

No Ex Post Facto Laws

A

(a) Make criminal an act that when done was not criminal;
(b) Aggravate a crime or increase the punishment therefore;
(c) Change the rules of evidence to the detriment of criminal defendants as a class; or
(d) Alter the law of criminal procedure to deprive criminal defendants of a substantive right

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Keeler v. Superior Court

A

Murder of fetus. Constitutional: prohibition against retrospective penal legislation (ex post facto)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Model Penal Code 2.02(4)

A

where law prescribes culpability element without distinguishing among the material elements, such provision shall apply to all elements unless a contrary purpose plainly appears. State v Miles exception.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Factors that indicate legislative intent of strict liability include:

A

1) “Public welfare” offense instead of traditional common law crime
2)Regulation of inherently dangerous activity
3) Lower punishment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Presumption of constitutionality:

A

if there are two interpretations, go with the constitutional one

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Canon of strict construction:

A

if there is a plain meaning go with that.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Legislative intent

A

if text is ambiguous look to legislative intent (Banks gives examples of indicta of intent):

”purposes appearing from the statute…the phraseology, the words ordinary or technical, the law as it prevailed before the statute, the mischief to be remedied, the remedy, the end to be accomplished…the preamble, the title…the legislative history and the circumstances surrounding its adoption; earlier statutes on the same subject; the common law as it was understood at the time of the enactment of the statute; and previous interpretations of the same or similar statutes.”

29
Q

Rule against surplusage:

A

assume each word has independent meaning

30
Q

Rule of lenity:

A

if there are two equally reasonable interpretations but one is more favorable to the defendant, go with that one.

31
Q

Rule for Void for Vagueness

A

Rule: A criminal ordinance can be void for vagueness, both in the sense that it fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his contemplated conduct is forbidden by the statute or because it encourages arbitrary and erratic arrests and convictions.

A statute does not violate the Due Process Clause of the Constitution if it fairly alerts an individual as to what conduct is prohibited.

32
Q

Actus reus as omission is __________

A

when you have legal duty to act and do not

33
Q

Martin v. State

A

not valid conviction
(Police arrested Martin at his home and took him onto highway - convicted for drunk in public)

Rule: Being involuntarily and forcibly carried to a public place by an arresting officer does not constitute an “act” as required by the elements of a crime.
Any person who, while intoxicated or drunk,
Appears in any public place
Where one or more persons are present
Manifests a drunken condition by boisterous or indecent conduct or loud and profane discourse
Shall, on conviction, be fined.

34
Q

State v. Utters

A

convicted of voluntary manslaughter
(father kills son - Omissions)

Rule: have to have actus reus ie voluntary act, and an act cannot be voluntary if you are
unconscious; conditioned response cannot be defense to actus reus when there’s not enough evidence for ∆ to bring the defense to the jury; argument is legally valid, it’s just not supported by evidence

35
Q

2 components of every crime:

A
  1. Actus reus - objective - the culpable act itself
  2. Mens rea - subjective - the criminal intent with which one [commits the actus rea]
36
Q

Criminal law only punishes________ more precisely______________.

A

Conduct; voluntary conduct

37
Q

A person is not guilty of an offense unless his conduct “includes”__________

A

a voluntary act
Excludes punishment for mere thoughts
bars liability for purely involuntary conduct

38
Q

Conditioned Response

A

An act or a pattern of activity occurring so rapidly, so uniformly as to be automatic in response to a certain stimulus

39
Q

Automatism

A

Action or conduct occurring without will, purpose, or reasoned intention such as sleep walking; behavior carried out in a state of unconsciousness or mental dissociation without full awareness. Can be asserted as a defense to a crime to negate the requisite mental state of voluntariness.

40
Q

Omission

A

itself is not a crime, the crime is a breach of a legal (whether general or statute specific)duty.
Choosing not to act when you are legally responsible to

41
Q

People v. Beardsley

A

convicted of voluntary manslaughter
(man with mistress on a bender)

Rule: omission to act can be actus reus when there is legal duty existing between 2 parties.
A legal duty owed cannot be a mere moral obligation because the duty must be imposed by law or contract and the omission must be the immediate and direct cause of harm.
Generally, America has a no duty to rescue – or no duty to act standard.

42
Q

4 situations in which the failure to act may constitute breach of a legal duty

A

When a statute imposes liability
Special relationship-father/son or husband/wife
Contractual duty
Voluntarily assumed duty
When person creates risk of harm to others

43
Q

Why common law tolerates permitting harm even they the person could have prevented or mitigated the harm at no significant physical risk to themselves

A
  1. “Non-doings” (omissions) are inherently more ambiguous than wrongdoings (acts). Therefore punishing omitters increases the risk of convicting morally innocent persons
  2. Difficult line-drawing problems arise in omission cases. Complicating the analysis is the so called “bystander effect”
  3. Well-meaning bystanders often make matters worse by intervening in ongoing events. A rule requiring assistance might cause more harm than good in many cases.
  4. Issue of freedom:
    A penal law that prohibits a person from doing X (e.g. unjustifiably killing another person) permits that individuals to do anything other than X…In contracts, a law that requires a person to do Y (e.g. to help a bystander) bars that person from doing anything other than Y.
    (a). In a society that generally values personal autonomy, we need to be exceptionally cautious about creating legal duties to act that compel us to benefit others, rather than passing laws that simply require us not to harm others.
44
Q

Barber v. Superior Court

A

omission - there was no legal duty to provide care, so no actus reus.
(2 doctors discontinued treatment, life support, of a coma patient were charged with murder and conspiracy)

Rule: A physician’s failure to continue treatment of a comatose patient at the request of the patient’s family is not an unlawful failure to perform a legal duty and therefore is not punishable.

45
Q

Social harm

A

Definition- the loss suffered from the “result crime” is experienced by not only immediate victim, but also by society

46
Q

Mens Rea 2 meanings

A

2 meanings:
Broadly,- guilty mind, vicious will, immorality of motive, or morally culpable state of mind.

More narrowly,- refers to the mental state the defendant must have with regard to the “social harm” elements set out in the definition of the offense. “A person is guilty of offense if she intentionally does X [e.g. robs a bank, takes a human life, or injures another - the social harm element(s) of an offense]

47
Q

Elements of Mens Rea

A

A defendant is not guilty of the offense if she does X recklessly, even though recklessness is a morally blameworthy state of mind (and thus, the defendant has a mens rea in the culpability sense of the term) because the defendant does not specific state of mind required for the offense.

A requirement of mens rea:
Intentionality and/or willfulness

Important distinction:
Tragedy vs Sin
Unfortunate outcome vs. Intentionally causing harm

48
Q

Regina v. Cunningham

A

Gas leak MIL

Rule:
Malice is:
An intention to do the particular kind of harm that was in fact done
Or
Recklessness as to whether such harm should occur or not
i.e. the accused has foreseen that the particular kind of harm might be done and yet has gone on to take the risk of it (disregard)

49
Q

How to prove culpability?

A

Intent

50
Q

People v. Conley pg. 165

A
  1. Battery
  2. An important warning on the meaning of the term intent
  3. Proving intent
  4. Transferred intent (basic)
  5. Transferred intent (advanced)
  6. Intent v. motive
  7. Specific intent and general intent
    Simple assault (general intent): intentional, non-consensual application of force
    mistake of fact would negate intentional
    Aggravated assault (specific intent): intentional, non-consensual application of force w/ intent to cause serious bodily harm
    i. mistake of fact would negate intent to cause serious bodily harm
51
Q

State v Nations

A

(Strip club case where owner didn’t factually know that one of the dancers was 16)

RULE: Where a statute requires knowledge of a fact as an element of a crime, it is insufficient to prove the defendant was aware of the high probability of that fact’s existence, unless the statute provides otherwise.

52
Q

State v Miles

A

(South Carolina- Miles drug trafficking opioids- Oxycodone 4 grams worth) (defining knowing what he had as specific or just know of illegal drugs

if model penal code is not mentioned reference State v Miles and say how if the court can rule in favor of the prosecution where you don’t need to know exactly what the (type of drug) or thing they had was.

RULE: Drug crimes require the accused to know he or she possessed an illegal drug, but not which specific drug.

53
Q

Morissette v. United States

A

Reverse judgment Court of Appeals
Larceny. Taking bomb casings from a military bombing range.
Rule:
The mere omission from the language of the statute of any mention of intent is not to be construed as eliminating the element of intent from the crime.

54
Q

Staples v. United States

A

Reversed judgment court of appeals
Statutory interpretation issue. Strict Liability for not registering a modified firearm

Rule:
Federal criminal laws are interpreted to have a mental state (mens rea) requirement unless Congress clearly indicates otherwise.

55
Q

Garnett v. State

A

Guilty for
Pure Strict Liability for rape of a 13 year old girl
Rule: Courts should not read a mens rea requirement into a statutory rape law unless the legislature clearly intended for one.

56
Q

Model Penal Code Section 2.01.1

A

1.) A person is not guilty of an offense unless his liability is based on conduct
which includes a voluntary act or the omission to perform an act of which he
is physically capable.
 You’re only in trouble for something if you actually did it on purpose or you didn’t do something you could have done.
Omission: In law, an omission is a failure to act, which generally attracts
different legal consequences from positive conduct. In the criminal law, an
omission will constitute an ACTUS REUS and give rise to liability only
when the law imposes a duty to act and the defendant is in breach of that
duty.

57
Q

Model Penal Code 2.01.2

A

The following are not voluntary acts within the meaning of this section:
a) A reflex or convulsion (like when your body moves automatically)
b) A bodily movement during unconsciousness or sleep (moving while
asleep/sleepwalking)
c) Conduct during hypnosis or resulting from hypnotic suggestion
(someone hypnotized you)

58
Q

Model Penal Code 2.01.3

A

Liability for the commission of an offense may not be based on an omission
unaccompanied by action unless:
a) The omission is expressly made sufficient by the law defining the
offense; or
b) A duty to perform the omitted act is otherwise imposed by law
 In other words: You can't be blamed for not doing something unless:
a) The law says not doing it is enough to get in trouble, or
b) The law says you have to do it.

59
Q

Model Penal Code 2.01.4

A

Possession is an act, within the meaning of this section, if the possessor
knowingly procured or received the thing possessed or was aware of his
control thereof for a sufficient period to have been able to terminate his
possession.
 If you have possession of something and you knew you got it or knew you
had control over it for long enough to give it up, that counts as an action
according to this rule.

60
Q

Model Penal Code 2.02
Minimum requirements of Culpability-

A

a person is not guilty of an offense unless he acted purposefully, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently in respect to EACH element of the offense.

61
Q

Purposefully

A

A person acts purposfully with respect to a material element of an offense when:
elements: conscious object to enage in conduct or cause result of crime

62
Q

Knowingly

A

A person acts knowingly with respect to a material element of an offense
Elements: involves nature of his conduct and knew the possibility of the outcome of his actions and proceeded with his conduct

63
Q

Recklessly

A

A person acts recklessly with respect to a material element of an offense if he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct.

64
Q

Negligently

A

Acts negligently if he should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct

65
Q

Model Penal Code 2.02.3
Culpability required unless otherwise provided

A

When the culpability sufficient to establish a material element of an offense is not prescribed by law, such element is established if a person acts purposely, knowingly or recklessly with respect thereto.

66
Q

Model Penal Code 2.02.5
Substitutes for Negligence, Recklessness, and Knowledge

A

When the law provides that negligence suffices to establish an element an element of an offense, such element also is established if a person acts purposley, knowingly, or recklessly. When recklessness suffices to establish an element also is established an element, such element also is established if a person acts purposely.

67
Q

Model Penal Code 2.02.6

A

Requirement of Purpose Satisfied if Purpose Is Conditional. When a particular purpose is an element of an offense, the element is established although such purpose is conditional, unless the condition negatives the harm or evil sought to be prevented by the law defining the offense.

68
Q

Model Penal Code 2.02.7

A

Requirement of Knowledge Satisfied by Knowledge of High Probability. When knowledge of the existence of a particular fact is an element of an offense, such knowledge is established if a person is aware of a high probability of its existence, unless he actually believes that it does not exist.

69
Q

Model Penal Code 2.02.8

A

Requirement of Wilfulness Satisfied by Acting Knowingly. A requirement that an offense be committed wilfully is satisfied if a person acts knowingly with respect to the material elements of the offense, unless a purpose to impose further requirements appears.

L1 Law School (2 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions