CRIMINAL LAW Flashcards
larceny by trick
At common law, larceny by trick is the
- taking of personal property by
- use of fraud (knowing representation of false material fact)
- to procure temporary delivery of POSSESSION
- of another’s property
- with the intent to PERMANENTLY DEPRIVE
False pretenses
- use of fraud (knowing representation of false material fact)
- to obtaining TITLE
- to the personal property of another
- with the intent to DEFRAUD
- paying for goods with counterfeit money or a bad check
Embezzlement
Embezzlement requires fraudulent conversion of the property of another by a person who is in lawful possession of the property.
duress is never a defense to intentional murder.
A teenage girl wanted to be popular in high school. A group of “mean girls” approached her and asked her to join their clique. The teenage girl quickly agreed. That weekend, the mean girls held a party at which they told the teenage girl that she had to kill their math teacher to be in the group. The teenage girl refused and said she did not want to be in the clique after all. The mean girl leader then said to the other members, “She’s already in, right? We can’t let her out. We’ll kill her if she tries to leave.” The other members all orally agreed. On Monday morning, the teenage girl put poison in the math teacher’s coffee cup, and he died while explaining quadratic equations.
The teenage girl is charged with deliberate and premeditated murder.
If the teenage girl establishes that she killed the math teacher because the mean girls threatened to kill her, should she be convicted?
ANo, because she was forced to act under duress.
BNo, because the killing of the math teacher was a legal necessity.
CYes, because duress is never a defense to intentional murder.
DYes, because the mean girls threatened the teenage girl with future, not immediate harm.
Withdrawal from conspiracy-
Withdrawal is not a defense to conspiracy.
Withdrawal is not a defense to conspiracy.
The modern majority view of conspiracy is that the crime is complete at the moment an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy has been completed.
An overt act is a necessary element of a conspiracy in the majority of jurisdictions and under the MPC. However, it is only one of the required elements of a conspiracy. Additionally, at common law, no overt act is required for the conspiracy to be complete. Either way, once all of the elements of conspiracy have been met, withdrawal is not a valid defense.
“imperfect self-defense,”
when you use self defense - honest but not reasonable
sentence is generally reduced to manslaughter from murder
CONSPIRACY
CONSPIRACY
• COMMON LAW: An agreement by two or more people to commit an unlawful act. (3 elements) – no. overt act req
- MODERN LAW: Adds an overt act element and one people is enough for MPC.
- (ex: undercover police officer is the 2nd it is conspiracy even though no agreement with 2 people)
- MPC- MINORITY VIEW: only the Defendant must actually agree to commit the unlawful act.
- The other people whom the Defendant agrees can be undercover agents.
• Unilateral Theory of Conspiracy: a defendant may be convicted of conspiracy even though all other parties to the illicit agreement are not criminally liable
PINKERTON RULE
PINKERTON RULE: a conspirator can be convicted of both the offense of conspiracy and all substantive crimes committed by any other co-conspirators acting in furtherance of the conspiracy. Under the MPC rule a member of the conspiracy is not criminally liable for such crimes unless that member aids and abets in commission of the crimes.
To commit a crime, it is required to have:
1) ACTUS REUS (Act or failure to act) – no such thing as thought.
a) voluntarily
b) physical act (can be a speech)
c) failure to act
• statutory duty
• special relationship (parents, healthcare, workers)
• assuming a duty
• causing a danger and failing to mitigate the victim caused by the peril
2) MENS REA (mental element) (specific or general intent or malice)
Transferred Intent Doctrine
Transferred intent does not apply to attempted crimes, only to complete crimes.
INSANITY
M’Naghten: Defendant did not know either (i) the nature and quality of the act, or (ii) the wrongfulness of the act, because of a defect of reason due to mental disease (“right from wrong” test)
Irresistible impulse: defendant lacked capacity for self-control and free choice due to mental disease or defect (inability to conform conduct to the law)
Durham: the unlawful act was the product of defendant’s mental disease or defect (“but for” test)
MPC (combines M’Naghten and irresistible impulse): At the time of the conduct, defendant lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of the act or to conform his conduct to law, as a result of mental disease or defect
CONSPIRACY
• COMMON LAW: An agreement by two or more people to commit an unlawful act. (3 elements) – no. overt act req
- MODERN LAW: Adds an overt act element and one people is enough for MPC.
- (ex: undercover police officer is the 2nd it is conspiracy even though no agreement with 2 people)
WITHDRAWAL
Common law: no withdrawal for conspiracy
MPC and Federal: if conspirator withdrew prior commission of any overt act by communication her intention to withdraw to all conspirators OR by informing law enforcement
After an overt act- ok if he thwarts the conspiracy (stopping or notifying police)
If its late to thwart -can limit liability by informing OR timely informing law enforcement
There must be CAUSATION (requirement for torts and criminal law) ***
D’s conduct must be both the cause in fact and the proximate cause of the crime committed.
- Cause in fact: but-for D’s conduct, the result would not have occurred
- Proximate cause: the actual result is the natural and probable consequence of D’s conduct, even if did not occur exactly as expected.
THEFT CRIMES
Embezzlement requires fraudulent conversion of the property of another by a person who is in lawful possession of the property.
False pretenses require obtaining title to the property of another person through the reliance of that person on a known false representation of a material past or present fact, and the representation is made with the intent to defraud.
Larceny by trick: One who obtains possession of, but not title to, property owned by another through fraud or deceit with the intent to permanently deprive the victim of that property, resulting in the conversion of the property
UNDER MPC AND MANY JURISDICTIONS, crimes such as larceny, false pretenses, etc. all are treated as a single statutory crime of theft (which includes both tangible and intangible property)
