Criminal Law

Question 1

Purposefully

Answer 1

Conscious objective to engage in certain conduct or cause a certain result.

Question 2

Knowingly

Answer 2

When you are aware that your conduct will very likely cause the result.

Question 3

Recklessly

Answer 3

Conscious disregard for a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a prohibited result will follow, and this disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of reasonable care.

Question 4

Negligently (criminal negligence)

Answer 4

A person has a mens rea of criminal negligence when he (1) fails to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk, and (2) that failure constitutes a substantial deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would’ve exercised in the same situation. Objective standard.

Question 5

Principal in the Second Degree

Answer 5

Persons who aid, advise, or encourage the principal and are present at the crime.

Question 6

Accessories Before the Fact

Answer 6

Persons who aid, advise, or encourage the principal but are not present at the crime.

Question 7

Accomplice Liability

Answer 7

Requires: (1) intent to assist principal in commission of crime, (2) intent that principal commit the crime, and (3) actually aid, counsel, or encourage principal before or during commission of the crime.

Accomplice is responsible for crimes she committed or aided/advised/encouraged and any other probable and foreseeable crimes committed in the course of committing the crime contemplated.

When the offense has recklessness or negligence mens rea (involuntary manslaughter), intent is satisfied if accomplice (1) intended to facilitate commission of crime, and (2) acted with recklessness or negligence.

Question 8

Conspiracy

Answer 8

An agreement, with an intent to agree, and an intent to pursue an unlawful objective. Requires an overt act (mere preparation is enough!) But at common law, no act was required.

Traditional Common Law Rule: bilateral approach requires two guilty minds.

Modern Unilateral MPC Approach: requires only one party have criminal intent. Thus, a defendant can be convicted of conspiracy with a cop.

No merger! You can be convicted of conspiring to do something, and actually doing it. You cannot withdraw from conspiracy.

Question 9

Solicitation

Answer 9

Asking someone to commit a crime. The crime of solicitation ends when you ask them. Once they agree, it becomes a conspiracy. You cannot be charged with solicitation and conspiracy at the same time.

Question 10

Homicide of a Cop

Answer 10

First degree murder if the defendant (1) knew the victim was a law enforcement officer, and (2) the victim was acting in the line of duty.

Question 11

Larceny

Answer 11

A wrongful taking and carrying away of property of another by trespass (without permission) with intent to permanently deprive.

Taking something with the belief that it’s yours is not larceny.

Question 12

Embezzlement

Answer 12

Fraudulent conversion of property of another. You don’t have to “carry away” the property. Embezzlement involves lawful possession, followed by illegal conversion.

Question 13

False Pretenses

Answer 13

Defendant persuades owner of property to convey title by false representation.

Question 14

Arson

Answer 14

Malicious (or with reckless disregard) burning of any structure or dwelling. (at common law it was the dwelling of another).

Smoke damage or scorching doesn’t count, but charring counts! (scorching is safe, char=ar)

Question 15

Forgery

Answer 15

Making or altering of a false writing with intent to defraud.

Question 16

Burglary

Answer 16

Breaking (actual or constructive) and entering of a dwelling of another at night with the intent to commit a felony therein.

Constructive breaking - by fraud or threat.

Question 17

Robbery

Answer 17

Taking personal property of another from the other person’s presence by force or threat with intent to permanently deprive him of it.

Question 18

M’Naghten Rule (insanity defense)

Answer 18

At the time of his conduct, a mental defect caused defendant to lack ability to know wrongfulness of his actions or understand nature and quality of his actions.

Question 19

Irresistible Impulse Insanity Defense

Answer 19

Defendant lacked capacity for self control and free choice.

Question 20

Durham Rule

Answer 20

Defendant’s conduct was a product of mental illness. Crime would not have been committed but for the disease.

Question 21

Model Penal Code Insanity Defense

Answer 21

Defendant lacked the substantial capacity to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law or appreciate the criminality of his conduct.
(M’Naughten + irresistible impulse)

Question 22

Voluntary Intoxication

Answer 22

Only a defense to specific intent crimes!

Question 23

6th Amendment Right to Counsel

Answer 23

Applies to states through 14th amendment. Provides that in all criminal prosecutions a defendant has a right to assistance of counsel during all critical stages of a criminal prosecution after formal proceedings have begun. This right is offense specific.

Question 24

Larceny by Trick

Answer 24

Victim is tricked by a misrepresentation of fact into giving up custody of property.

Question 25

Murder

Answer 25

Unlawful killing of a human with malice aforethought. Malice aforethought exists if it was not voluntary manslaughter, and was committed with one of the following states of mind:

(1) intent to kill
(2) intent to inflict great bodily harm
(3) reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life (abandoned/malignant/depraved heart murder)
(4) intent to commit a felony (felony murder)

Question 26

Voluntary Manslaughter

Answer 26

Killing that would be murder but for the existence of adequate provocation. Provocation is adequate if:

(1) provocation would arouse sudden intense passion in the mind of an ordinary person, causing him to lose self control (exposure to deadly force, finding spouse in bed with another, or being a victim of serious battery);
(2) defendant was in fact provoked;
(3) there wasn’t sufficient time between provocation and killing for passions of a reasonable person to cook; and
(4) the defendant in fact did not cool off

Question 27

Involuntary Manslaughter

Answer 27

Committed with criminal negligence or recklessness

Question 28

Serious/dangerous Felonies

Answer 28

Remember “BARRK”

Burglary, Arson, Robbery, Rape, Kidnapping

Question 29

Assault

Answer 29

Attempt to commit battery or the intentional creation other than by mere words, of a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the victim of imminent bodily harm.

Question 30

Preponderance of the Evidence

Answer 30

Lesser standard than clear and convincing

Question 31

Cause-In-Fact (“But-For” Causation)

Answer 31

A defendant’s conduct is the cause-in-fact of a death if the death would not have occurred “but-for” defendant’s conduct.

Question 32

Proximate Cause

Answer 32

A defendant’s conduct is the proximate cause of a death if the death was the natural and probable consequence of his conduct, even if he did not anticipate the precise manner in which it would occur.

Question 33

Intervening Act

Answer 33

Can shield defendant from liability if the act is a mere coincidence or is outside the foreseeable sphere of risk created by the defendant’s act.

Question 34

Drampshop Act

Answer 34

Creates a cause of action in favor of any third person injured by an intoxicated vendee. Many states adopted this act because at common law, bartenders were not liable for injuries caused by drunk drivers.

Question 35

Specific Intent Crimes Mnemonic

Answer 35

Remember: "Students Can Always Fake A Laugh, Even For Ridiculous Bar Facts"
Solicitation
Conspiracy
Attempt
First-degree murder
Assault
Larceny
Embezzlement
False pretenses
Robbery
Burglary
Forgery

Question 36

Specific Intent Crimes

Answer 36

Qualify for additional defenses not available for other crimes.

Question 37

Common Law Mental States

Answer 37

Specific intent, malice, general intent, and strict liability..

Question 38

Receiving Stolen Property

Answer 38

Receiving possession and control of stolen property known to have been obtained in a criminal manner by another with intent to permanently deprive the owner.

Question 39

Deadly Force in Self-Defense

Answer 39

A person may used deadly force in self-defense if he: (1) is without fault, (2) is confronted with unlawful force, and (3) reasonably believes that he is threatened with imminent death or great bodily harm.

Cops can use deadly force if necessary to prevent a felon’s escape and cop reasonably believes felon threatens death or serious bodily injury.

Question 40

Attempt

Answer 40

Requires more than mere preparation. MPC requires a substantial step in the course of conduct planned. Overt act required for attempt is much more than the acts required for conspiracy.

Cannot be charged with attempt and completed crime.

Question 41

Imperfect Self-Defense

Answer 41

Reduces murder to manslaughter.