Criminal Law

Question 1

Crimes –> Crimes Against Personal Property: Larceny - 5 Elements

Answer 1

(1) the taking
(2) and carrying away
(3) of the property
(4) of another
(5) with intent to permanently deprive the owner thereof

Question 2

Crimes –> Crimes Against Personal Property: Larceny - Carrying Away Element

Answer 2

AKA Asportation

Complete upon even the slightest movement (6 inches will suffice).

Must concur in time w/ the intent to permanently deprive.

Question 3

Crimes –> Crimes Against Personal Property: Larceny - Property Element

Answer 3

CL: larceny limited to tangible personal property.
ML: expanded to include theft of services and other intangibles (gas, electric power, written instruments w/ property rights).

Abandoned Property

• -> Cannot be the subject of larceny (although lost/mislaid property can)
• -> 2 Requirements for abandoned property larceny; the finder:
  (1) must intent to permanently deprive the owner of it; and
  (2) must either know who the owner is or have reason to believe that he can find out the owner’s identity

Question 4

Crimes –> Crimes Against Personal Property: Larceny - Of Another Element

Answer 4

Property must be of another.

A good faith CLAIM OF RIGHT is a valid defense.
–> Under certain circs, an owner can be guilty of larceny of his own property (such as when another is in lawful possession of the owner’s property).

Question 5

Crimes –> Crimes Against Personal Property: Larceny - Intent to Permanently Deprive Element

Answer 5

At time of taking, if D intends to return the property to the victim unconditionally and w/in a reasonable time, there is no intent to permanently deprive.
–> D must have ability to return the property, even if something unanticipated stops the actual return of the property.

At time of taking, if D has a good faith belief that he is entitled to possession, there is no intent to permanently deprive, even if that belief is both incorrect and unreasonable.

Doctrine of Continuing Trespass
-A person who takes another’s property w/o authorization and intending only to use it temporarily before restoring it unconditionally to its owner may nevertheless be guilty of larceny if he later changes his mind and decides not to return the property after all.

Question 6

Crimes –> Crimes Against Personal Property: Embezzlement - Elements

Answer 6

(1) the fraudulent conversion or misappropriation;
(2) of the property of another;
(3) by one who is already in lawful possession.

Question 7

Crimes –> Crimes Against Personal Property: False Pretenses - Elements

Answer 7

(1) a FALSE REPRESENTATION of a present or past material fact by the D;
(2) that CAUSES the victim to pass title to his property;
(3) to the D;
(4) who KNOWS his representation to be false; and
(5) INTENDS thereby to defraud the victim.

-TITLE passes to the D even though it is VOIDABLE due to the D’s fraud.

Question 8

Crimes –> Crimes Against Personal Property: Receipt of Stolen Property

Answer 8

ML Elements:

(1) the RECEIVING of stolen property;
(2) KNOWN to be stolen;
- -> An honest but unreasonable belief that the property is not stolen would likely prevent a conviction for receiving stolen property
- -> However, constructive knowledge (through notice of facts and circumstances from which guilty knowledge may be fairly inferred) will also suffice
(3) with the INTENT to permanently deprive the owner

Question 9

Crimes –> 5 Different Types of Crimes

Answer 9

(1) Crimes against personal property
(2) Crimes against habitation
(3) Crimes against the person
(4) Inchoate crimes
(5) Accomplice liability

Question 10

Crimes –> Crimes Against Personal Property: Types

Answer 10

(1) Larceny
(2) Embezzlement
(3) False Pretenses
(4) Receipt of Stolen Property

Question 11

Crimes –> Crimes Against Habitation: Types

Answer 11

(1) Burglary

(2) Arson

Question 12

Crimes –> Crimes Against Habitation: Burglary

Answer 12

ML Elements:

(1) the breaking;
- -> Constructive breaking: D gains entry by fraud, deception or threat of force
(2) and entering;
(3) of the structure;
(4) of another;
(5) w/ the intent to commit a felony / theft offense therein
- -> Intent to commit felony needs to be simultaneous w/ entering; any intent formed after entry is insufficient (absent an additionally entry once inside).

CL

• -> Had to be a dwelling house
• -> Had to be done at night

D can be convicted of both burglary and felony offense committed therein.
–> Does not matter if D actually completes felony

Question 13

Crimes –> Crimes Against Habitation: Arson

Answer 13

ML Elements:

(1) the malicious;
(2) burning;
(3) of property (expanded to virtually any structure)

CL:

• -> required dwelling house
• -> required property be of another (ML: expanded to include maliciously burning one’s own property - ie insurance fraud).

Question 14

Crimes –> Crimes Against Person: Types

Answer 14

(1) Robbery
(2) Assault
(3) Battery
(4) Kidnapping
(5) Rape
(6) Extortion
(7) Murder/Homicide

Question 15

Crimes –> Crimes Against Person: Robbery

Answer 15

2 Elements:

(1) taking must be from the PERSON/PRESENCE of the V (w/in his control); and
(2) taking must be accomplished either by FORCE or VIOLENCE; or by INTIMIDATION of violence.

If the V is in fear (though baseless) there may still be a robbery (AKA fear based on lies qualifies as threats for constituting robbery).

Use of force must be CONTEMPORANEOUS w/ taking (all one occurrence).

LARCENY, ASSAULT, and BATTERY are all lesser-included offenses of robbery (all elements of the lesser offense are included w/in the greater offense).

Question 16

Crimes –> Crimes Against Person: Assault

Answer 16

Modern Law

• –> D may commit by:
  (1) ATTEMPTING to commit battery; or
  (2) intentionally CAUSING the victim to FEAR an IMMEDIATE battery

(1) Intended Battery
- -> Fact that V was not aware of attempted battery no defense to assault.
- -> Most states do not allow D to avoid liability for attempt assault bc the D lacked present ability to consummate battery.

(2) Intentional Fear
- -> A D who is guilty of fear of battery assault must intend to either cause the actionable apprehension or cause the victim to suffer bodily harm.

(3) Reasonable Apprehension
- -> Element of apprehension in this type of assault connotes expectation more than fear

(4) Present/Immediate
- -> Promise of future action generally not assault

Simple assault –> AGG ASSAULT

(1) where D commits an assault w/ dangerous weapon
(2) where D acts w/ intent to serious injure, rape, or murder the victim

Question 17

Crimes –> Crimes Against Person: Battery

Answer 17

Criminal battery is the INTENTIONAL, RECKLESS, or CRIMINALLY NEG unlawful application of FORCE to the person of the victim.
—> Act of applying force may be direct or indirect

INTENT (GIC)

• -> D may be guilty where he acts:
  (1) recklessly;
  (2) negligently;
  (3) w/ knowledge that his act (or omission) will result in criminal liability

Common circumstances elevating battery to agg battery:

(1) D causing victim SERIOUS bodily injury
(2) D using a DEADLY WEAPON to commit the battery
(3) D battering a woman, child, or LE officer

Defenses

(1) CONSENT
- -> Valid defense where it is not coerced or obtained by fraud, but no defense to breach of the peace.

(2) DOS AND DOO
(3) Where D commits offensive touching to PREVENT someone from committing a crime

Question 18

Crimes –> Crimes Against Person: Kidnapping

Answer 18

Elements; D:

(1) ABDUCTS or steals away any person;
- -> Can be met where V is taken from one place to another or when they are secretly confined where the person is not likely to be found.
(2) W/O lawful authority or warrant; and
(3) holds that person AGAINST his/her will

CL: unlawful restraint of person’s liberty by force/show of force so as to send the victim to another country

Classification

• –> CL: Misdemeanor; ML: FELONY
• –> Number of states define certain types of kidnapping as being agg type, and thus deserving of higher punishment. Examples:
  (1) where offense is committed and actor uses/exhibits a deadly weapon
  (2) where the victim suffers serious bodily injury or sexual assault
  (3) where the victim is held for ransom; or
  (4) where the victim is a small child

Question 19

Crimes –> Crimes Against Person: Rape - Definition and Elements

Answer 19

ML: sexual intercourse against a V’s will by FORCE, THREAT, or INTIMIDATION (reqs proof of sexual intercourse w/ another compelled by force and against V’s will or compelled by threat of bodily injury).

• -> Regardless of gender
• -> Rebuttable presumption male under 14 incapable of rape

CL: unlawful sexual intercourse by a male person w/ a female person w/o her consent (penetration required, emission not).
–> male under 14 presumed incapable of rape

Any penetration, however slight, will satisfy req’ments for rape.

Question 20

Crimes –> Crimes Against Person: Rape - Resistance

Answer 20

Some rape statutes have been amended to eliminate req that V resist.

Where resistance remains element of rape:
(CL): Resistance or opposition by mere words typically not enough (must resist by ACTS).
(ML): VERBAL resistance sufficient for rape to occur

Question 21

Crimes –> Crimes Against Person: Rape - Consent

Answer 21

If the victim is INCAPABLE of consenting, the intercourse is rape.
–> Inability to consent may be caused by the effect of drugs or intoxicating substances or by unconsciousness

Two Types of Consent Defenses:

(1) Consent defense
(2) Reasonable belief in consent defense
- -> A Ds reasonable and good faith mistake of fact re a victim’s consent to sexual intercourse is a defense to rape
- –> Objective component: whether the D’s mistake re consent was REASONABLE under the circumstances (society views as reasonable)
- –> Subjective component: whether the D HONESTLY and in good faith (albeit mistakenly) believed that the V consented to sexual intercourse

Question 22

Crimes –> Crimes Against Person: Statutory Rape

Answer 22

Where a female is under the statutorily prescribed age of consent (usually 16) an act of intercourse constitutes rape despite her apparent consent (some jdxs extend to males).

• -> A Ds mistake as to age of consent generally no defense
• -> Where parties are validly married, no statutory rape

Question 23

Crimes –> Crimes Against Person: Extortion

Answer 23

CL: misdemeanor involving the corrupt demand or receipt of an unlawful fee by a public official under color of his office.

Modern statutory law: extortion commonly called blackmail (obtaining the property of another by the use of threats of future harm to the victim or his property).

Question 24

Crimes –> Crimes Against Person: Murder: General Rule

Answer 24

Definition
–> The unlawful killing of a human being w/ malice aforethought.

Requirements

(1) Actus reus
- -> A voluntary act, an involuntary act arising from a voluntary act (seizure prone person driving car), or an omission to act where there is a legal duty to do so.

(2) AC
- -> Acceleration: when victim already dying, if D’s actions bring about death more quickly than if D had not acted, D’s actions were AC.
- -> May be found responsible for death W/O AC if:
(1) a D who is an accomplice
(2) a D who is a member of a conspiracy where the reasonable result of a conspiracy is homicide and the homicide was committed in furtherance of conspiracy
(3) a D who kills victim together with 3rd party, causation question depends on whether D’s act was direct or indirect cause
(4) a D causes the death of another (even if not at his own hands) during commission of or in attempt to commit felony (IE felony murder)

(3) PC
- -> Where victim’s death was natural and probable as a conseq of D’s conduct, does not matter whether D foresaw the exact chain of events resulting in victim’s death.
- -> CL: if victim died more than one year and one day after D’s act, D’s act not PC (most states have eliminated/extended this rule).

Notes

• -> People who fail to prevent injury/death not generally liable for victim’s condition unless they have duty to act.
• -> Where victim has unusual condition that contributes to his death, D can still be guilty of murder (takes him as he finds him)

Question 25

Crimes –> Crimes Against Person: Murder - Malice (2 Routes)

Answer 25

Route One
---> Types:
1) Intent to Kill
2) Intent to Inflict Serious Bodily Injury 
3) Reckless Disregard for Great Risk to Human Life
---> If yes…
Adequate Provocation?
	a) If no = Murder; What Degree?
---> If no…
Criminal negligence?
	a) If yes = involuntary manslaughter
	b) If no = no guilt

Route Two - Felony Murder Rule
Inherently Dangerous Felony?
—> If yes, 1D or 2D?
—> If no, misdemeanor manslaughter?

Question 26

Crimes –> Crimes Against Person: Murder - Malice (Intent to Kill)

Answer 26

Conduct where the D consciously desires to kill another person or makes the resulting death inevitable (absent justification, excuse, or mitigation to voluntary manslaughter).

Deadly Weapons Doctrine
–> An inference of intent to kill is raised through the intentional use of any instrument which, judging from its manner of use, is calculated to produce death or serious bodily injury.

Question 27

Crimes –> Crimes Against Person: Murder - Malice (Intent to Cause Serious Bodily Harm)

Answer 27

Like intent to kill malice, intent to inflict serious bodily injury must be proved by examination of all surrounding circumstances, including words and behavior of D.
–> Similarly, intentional use of deadly weapon in a way that is likely to causes serious injury provides evidence of intent to inflict serious bodily harm

Question 28

Crimes –> Crimes Against Person: Murder - Malice (Reckless Disregard for Great Risk to Human Life - Depraved Heart Murder)

Answer 28

Unintentional killing resulting from conduct involving a wanton indifference to human life and a conscious disregard of an unreasonable risk of death/serious bodily injury.
–> A D may create a very high risk of death/serious bodily injury for a logical and socially reasonable purpose (then not DH murder).

Question 29

Crimes –> Crimes Against Person: Murder - Malice (Adequate Provocation - Voluntary Manslaughter)

Answer 29

An intentional killing by adequate provocation or other circumstances negating malice aforethought (AKA heat of passion killing).

Adequate provocation

• -> Measured objectively, must be such that a reasonable person would lose self-control.
• -> Causal connection must exist between legally adequate grounds for provocation and the killing.
• -> The time period between the heat of passion and the fatal act must not be long enough that a reasonable person would have cooled off.
• -> Exchange of mere words generally not considered adequate provocation.

Other mitigating circumstances: imperfect self defense
–> May mitigate murder to VM where a D was either at fault in starting an altercation or unreasonably, but honestly, believed that harm was imminent or deadly force was necessary.

Diminished capacity may mitigate murder to manslaughter

Question 30

Crimes –> Crimes Against Person: Murder - Malice (No Adequate Provocation - First Degree)

Answer 30

Includes intent to kill murder committed w/ premeditation and deliberation, felony murder, and (in some jdxs) murder accomplished by lying in wait, poison, terrorism, or torture.

• -> Some jdxs require little/nothing more than intent to kill to find premeditation and deliberation, but MOST jdxs require MORE.
• -> Most jdxs require a reasonable period of time for premeditation and some evidence of reflection in order to distinguish 1D murder from “spur of the moment killings”

Question 31

Crimes –> Crimes Against Person: Murder - Malice (No Adequate Provocation - Second Degree)

Answer 31

Any murder that does not meet the requisite elements of 1D murder.

Examples:

(1) where the D’s malice is intent to inflict serious bodily injury
(2) where the D acted with wanton and willful misconduct; or
(3) FM, where underlying felony is not specifically listed in applicable 1D murder statutes

Question 32

Crimes –> Crimes Against Person: Murder - No Malice (With Criminal Negligence - Involuntary Manslaughter)

Answer 32

Requires D’s conduct create a high degree of risk of death or serious injury.
–> Degree of risk is more than mere ordinary neg, but less than wanton and willful misconduct.

An unintentional killing resulting w/o malice aforethought caused either by recklessness, criminal neg, or during the commission or attempted commission of an unlawful act.
–> Gross neg or criminally neg conduct is required, but majority of jdxs do NOT require D be consciously aware of risk created.

If no malice + no crim neg = no guilt

Question 33

Crimes –> Crimes Against Person: Murder - Malice: Three Types

Answer 33

1) Intent to Kill
2) Intent to Inflict Serious Bodily Injury
3) Reckless Disregard for Great Risk to Human Life

Question 34

Crimes –> Crimes Against Person: Murder - Felony Murder (Mnemonic for Felony Murder Crimes)

Answer 34

B - Burglary
A - Arson
R - Robbery
R - Rape
K - Kidnapping

Question 35

Crimes –> Crimes Against Person: Murder - Felony Murder

Answer 35

A killing proximately caused during the commission or attempted commission of a serious/inherently dangerous felony (generally includes both intentional and accidental killings).

• -> Mental state required: intent to commit underlying felony
• -> Felony starts when D could be convicted of attempting the underlying felony (no completion requirement); felony terminated when felon reaches place of temporary safety (while fleeing, still may be guilty).

Collateral
–> Some states have limited FM by requiring underlying felony be independent of homicide so that every felonious attack on a victim which is ultimately fatal does not become escalated to murder by the rule.

Inherently Dangerous Req

• -> Abstract test (majority): consider only the elements of the felony in the abstract and not the factual circumstances of the felony as committed
• -> Contextual test (minority): look at particular circumstances of the case to determine whether underlying offense is inherently dangerous

Foreseeable Outgrowth
–> Resulting death must have been a FO of D’s actions (most deaths considered foreseeable, very liberal test)

Note: considered 1D murder

Question 36

Crimes –> Crimes Against Person: Murder - Felony Murder (No Inherently Dangerous Felony - Misdemeanor Manslaughter)

Answer 36

Misdemeanor-Manslaughter rule
–> An unintentional killing that occurs during the commission of a misdemeanor that is malum in se, or a felony that is not inherently dangerous type required for FM, is classified as involuntary manslaughter under this rule.

Question 37

Crimes –> Inchoate Crimes: Attempt

Answer 37

A specific intent to bring about a criminal result and a significant overt act in furtherance of that intent.

• Significant Overt Act
• -> An act (or an act of perpetration) beyond an act of “mere” preparation.
• -> CL: D had to perform the last act necessary to achieve intended results; ML: Acts prior to the last act are usually sufficient
• -> Proximity test: how close in time and physical distance a D was to the time and place the target crime was to be committed
• -> Equivocality test: reqs D conduct to have no other purpose than the commission of the crime attempted
• -> MPC: Act must constitute substantial step toward offense that corroborates the criminal intent required (such as scouting scene of crime)

Abandonment

• -> Voluntary means a true change of heart, not simply giving up in the face of difficulties or an increased likelihood of being caught.
• -> Complete means that the D is not merely postponing commission of the crime

Question 38

Crimes –> Inchoate Crimes: Solicitation

Answer 38

Solicitation is the crime of trying to get someone to commit your crime (the key to solicitation is a communication).

Rule:
Enticing, advising, inciting, inducing, urging, or otherwise encouraging another to commit the target offense

Common Law:
Misdemeanor, and the crime solicited had to be a felony or peace breach

Modern Law:
Broader; includes requesting another to commit any offense

Intent: The solicitor must intend the solicitee to perform criminal acts

The offense is complete at the time the solicitation is made

• –> Once the solicitation is communicated, it is a crime
• –> The solicitor cannot withdraw from solicitation

No requirement that the solicitee commit the offense BUT if they do (or attempt to), the solicitation merges into that offense, and the solicitor will be charged as an accomplice, not with solicitation

Question 39

Crimes –> Inchoate Crimes: Conspiracy - Liability Issues

Answer 39

Doctrine of accomplice liability
–> all jdxs recognize liability for crimes a conspirator aids and abets.

Pinkerton Doctrine

• -> Where conspirator does not have suff mens rea for liability as an accomplice, each conspirator is liable for the crimes of all other co-conspirators where crimes wee both:
  (1) a foreseeable outgrowth of the conspiracy; and
  (2) committed in furtherance of the conspiratorial goal

Question 40

Crimes –> Inchoate Crimes: Conspiracy - Procedural Issues

Answer 40

Acquittal of one co-conspirator
–> Traditionally results in acquittal of a single remaining co-conspirator because at least two guilty parties are required for conspiracy conviction; however, not necessary to try more than one conspirator.

CL (majority rule)
–> No conspiracy exists if only one of the conspirators truly agrees and the other conspirators feign agreement (must be a meeting of at least two guilty minds)

MPC
–> Unilateral approach: all of the co-conspirators, having feigned agreement or having been acquitted, will not alone prevent a D from conviction for conspiracy

Wharton Rule
–> In crimes where 2 or more people are necessary for commission of the crime, there is no conspiracy unless the agreement involves an additional person who is not essential to the definition of that crime.

Question 41

Crimes –> Inchoate Crimes: Conspiracy - Defenses

Answer 41

Withdrawal may cut off further liability for crimes committed in furtherance of the conspiracy if the withdrawing conspirator communicates his withdrawal to each of the co-conspirators.

MPC: withdrawal by co-conspirator may be valid affirmative defense to charge of conspiracy where renouncing party gives timely notice of his plans to all members of the conspiracy and performs an affirmative act to “thwart” the success of the conspiracy.

Question 42

Crimes –> Accomplice Liability: Issues

Answer 42

(1) Principals
(2) Accomplices
(3) Accessories After the Fact
(4) Withdrawal

Question 43

Crimes –> Inchoate Crimes: Types

Answer 43

(1) Solicitation
(2) Conspiracy
(3) Attempt

Question 44

Crimes –> Accomplice Liability: Principals

Answer 44

The actual perp who performs the criminal act w/ the requisite mental state is the principal in the 1D.

One who is present at the scene of the felony and aids, abets, or otherwise encourages the commission of the crime w/ the requisite intent is guilty as principal in the 2D.

Question 45

Crimes –> Accomplice Liability: Accessory Before the Fact

Answer 45

One who aids, abets, counsels, or otherwise encourages the commission of a felony, but is not present at the scene, is guilty as an accessory before the fact.
–> May be punished to the same extent as the principal for all crimes within the scope of the conspiracy

Conviction of the Principal

• -> Majority: principal need not be convicted in order for the accessory before the fact to be convicted.
• -> CL: conviction of the principal was required for conviction of an accessory

Question 46

Crimes –> Accomplice Liability: Accessory After the Fact

Answer 46

3 Requirements:

(1) a completed felony must have been committed;
(2) the accessory must have known the commission of the felony; and
(3) the accessory must have personally given aid to the felon to hinder the felon’s apprehension, conviction, or punishment

Question 47

Crimes –> Accomplice Liability: Accomplice

Answer 47

Definition
An individual is criminally liable as an accomplice if he gives assistance or encouragement or fails to act where he has a legal duty to oppose the crime of another (actus reus), and purposefully intends to effectuate commission fo the crime (mens rea).

Act Requirement
Even slight assistance or encouragement is suff, but the D must actually assist or encourage.
–> Assistance/encouragement need not be a cause in fact of the commission of the crime.
–> Words alone may be suff if they assisted or encouraged.

Mental State Requirement
CL: person must intend to commit the acts of assistance or encouragement and must further intend to encourage or assist another to commit the crime charged.

Minority ML: lower mental state - that of knowingly assisting or encouraging a crime (such as in cases where a seller, knowing of the buyer’s intent to commit arson, sells him an explosive device)

Question 48

Crimes –> Accomplice Liability: Withdrawal or Abandonment

Answer 48

An accomplice may sever liability for future crimes by withdrawal or abandonment.

• -> must give no further assistance/encouragement, and must communicate his withdrawal to his accomplices.
• -> many jdxs require him to make efforts to neutralize his prior assistance/encouragement (but does not have to try to thwart the commission of the crime).

Question 49

Defenses –> Types

Answer 49

1. Defense of Self
2. Defense of Others
3. Defense of Property
4. Insanity
5. Intoxication
6. Impossibility
7. Necessity
8. Mistake
9. Entrapment

Question 50

Defenses –> No Responsibility - Insanity (4 Tests)

Answer 50

M’Naghten Test
–> A D is relieved of criminal responsibility upon proof that at the time of commission of the act, he was laboring under such a defect of reason from a disease of the mind as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, OR (if he did know it) not to know that what he was doing was wrong.

MPC Test
–> A D not responsible for criminal conduct if (at the time of such conduct) as a result of mental disease or defect, he lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality (wrongfulness) of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law.

Irresistible Impulse Test
–> A D will be not guilty where he had a mental disease that kept him from controlling his conduct.

Durham Rule
–> A D is not criminally responsible if his unlawful act was the product of mental disease or defect (meaning it would not have been committed but for the defect/disease).

Notes:

• -> D must bear burden of proof in fed ct for federal violations and must prove the D of insanity by clear and convincing evidence (where at the time of commission D was unable to appreciate nature and quality or wrongfulness of his acts).
• -> In state ct, for state violations, majority rule: preponderance of the evidence and placing the burden on the D as an affirmative defense.

Question 51

Defenses –> No Responsibility - Intoxication

Answer 51

Voluntary/involuntary intoxication (alcohol or drugs) is a defense to a crime when it negates the existence of an element of the crime.

Voluntary intox

• -> Majority: may be a valid defense for specific intent crime if it negates the requisite mental state, and may negate a purposeful or knowing mental state.
• ———> Not a defense to GIC and will not negate recklessness, neg, or SL.

Involuntary intox
–> a defense to a crime, even if it does not negate an element of the crime, under the same circumstances as insanity

Question 52

Defenses –> Justification: Self-Defense

Answer 52

If a person has a reasonable belief that he is in imminent danger of unlawful bodily harm, he may use that amount of force in self-defense that is reasonably necessary to prevent such harm, unless he is the initial aggressor.

Deadly force: threatens death/serious bodily injury
Non-deadly force: threatens only bodily harm
Reasonable force: amount necessary to avoid threatened harm

Aggressor: One who strikes first blow or commits a crime against the victim.
–> Can regain right to self-defense if: (1) upon complete withdrawal perceived by the other party; or (2) escalation of force by the victim of the initial aggression.

Rule of retreat
–> General: person who did not initiate conflict has not duty to retreat in face of deadly attack; however, number of jdxs require retreat if it is feasible and can be done safely before deadly force (not reqd where not safe or D in own home, car, work).

Question 53

Defenses –> Justification: Defense of Third Person

Answer 53

Person justified in using force to defend 3rd person to the same extent that the 3rd person would be justified in using force to defend himself.

Majority: focuses on reasonableness of D’s belief that 3rd person was being unlawfully attacked (protects mistake if reasonable
Minority: D has no more right to use deadly force than the 3rd person ostensibly being protected

Question 54

Defenses –> Justification: Defense of Property

Answer 54

Reasonable, non-deadly force justified in defending one’s own property from theft, destruction, or trespass where D has a reasonable belief that property is in immediate danger and no greater force is used than necessary.
–> Deadly force can never be used to defend property (but can be used where defender reasonably believes entry will be made in dwelling by one w/ intent to commit felony within).

Question 55

Defenses –> Justification: Necessity

Answer 55

Reasonable force is justified to avoid imminent injury resulting from natural (non-human) forces or where an individual reasonably believes that his criminal conduct is necessary to avoid a greater harm that would result from compliance w/ the law. (ex: A kills B to save C and D)

Question 56

Defenses –> Other Defenses: Entrapment

Answer 56

Where the criminal act is the product of creative activity originating w/ law enforcement officials and the D is in no way predisposed to commit the crime.

Question 57

Defenses –> Other Defenses: Mistake

Answer 57

Mistake of Fact
Negates the existence of a mental state required to establish a material element of the crime (AKA there would be no crime if the facts were such as the D thought them to be).
–> To negate existence of GI, a mistake of fact must be reasonable to the extent that, under the circumstances, a reasonable person would have made that type of mistake.
–> To negate existence of SI, mistake of fact need not be reasonable; it may be unreasonable, provided it is honest.
–> Mistake or ignorance of fact not a defense to SL, which itself requires no mental state.

Mistake of Law
Where the D is unaware that his acts are criminally proscribes, such ignorance of the law is not a defense.
—> Exceptions:
(1) where a statute proscribing D’s conduct has not been reasonably made available or where the D has reasonably relied on a statute or judicial decision that is later overruled or declared unconstitutional.
(2) where a D relies in good faith upon an erroneous official statement of law contained in an administrative order or in an official interpretation by a public officer or dept; and
(3) where some element of a crime involves knowledge or awareness of the law by the D