Criminal Law Flashcards
Mens Rea + actus reus
A crime consists of an actus res (act) + a mens rea (mental state) which together violate a criminal statute.
D must have intent at time of act.
Different mental states
CRIM K
C - criminally negligent: fail to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk, where such failure is a substantial deviation from the standard of care.
R - reckless: conscious disregard a substantial and unjustifiable risk that circumstances exist or that a prohibited result will follow (must be a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in those circumstances).
I - intentional/purposeful: conscious object is to engage in conduct or cause a certain result
M - malicious (common law murder + arson - requires reckless disregard of high risk that particular harm will result)
K - knowing (w/ respect to conduct): when D aware that conduct is of a particular nature/certain circumstances exist; (w/ respect to results of conduct): when conduct will necessarily or very likely bring about a certain result.
Burden of proof? stages to challenge?
Beyond a reasonable doubt!
D may challenge People’s proof via:
- motion for directed verdict
- motion for acquittal
- an appeal
accomplice liability
Pros must prove:
1) accomplice assisted principal in the crime; and
2) acted with a) the intent to assist the principal; and b) intent that the principal commits the offense.
* mere knowledge that a crime will take place = not enough
@ CL:
- P in 1st degree -person who actually engaged in offense
- P in 2nd degree - person who aided/advised P & present at crime
- accessories before fact: persons who assisted prior but were NOT present
- accessories after fact: persons who with knowledge felony was committed assists P in escape
Modern stats:
- Principal: one who engages in the conduct
- Accomplice: one who aids/advises/encourages P
- Accessory after the fact: still treated separately
Exclusions from liability:
- members of a protected class
- necessary parties not provided for
Defense: withdrawal before crime becomes unstoppable/thwarting
SOLICITATION (specific intent)
an offer and rejection
-criminal solicitation is the offer to enter an illegal contract.
Guilty when, with specific intent that ANOTHER commits a crime, he solicits, encourages, . . . to cause another to engage in criminal conduct.
NOT DEFENSE: that person refused offer or lacked capacity to be charged with a crime (juvenile, insanity, undercover police officer)
Most states - merges to conspiracy once offer is accepted.
Can become attempt when co-conspirator takes a substantial step in commission of the crime.
CONSPIRACY
Agreement between two or more persons with the specific intent to commit a crime.
[conspiracy does not merge into completed crime; one can be convicted for both]
@ common law = no overt act required
@ modern statutes = require overt act in furtherance of the agreement (without specific lang, assume common law)
SCOTUS - a co-conspirator may be held criminally responsible for any and all reasonably foreseeable crimes committed in furtherance of the conspiracy by other conspirators. BUT under MPC approach, conspirator not liable for other co-conspirator’s crimes unless he sufficiently participated in those crimes to be an accomplice - EXCEPTION: BRAKERS felonies.
Co-conspirators do not have to know each other.
Common law conspiracy plurality agreement
No common law conspiracy if one party:
1) pretended to agree
2) was an undercover officer
3) was an infant or insane
4) was forced to agree
When one of two conspirators was acquitted, no common law crime of conspiracy - takes two to tango.
MPC unilateral conspiracy
Unilateral conspiracy theory - defines conspiracy as an agreement by D rather than between two people. Thus, D can be guilty if D agrees even though other party lacked capacity to form intent. Pros must prove:
1) D had specific intent that a crime be committed; and
2) D entered agreement to bring about the crime.
wharton rule for conspiracy
Where a crime cannot be completed unless two culpable people cooperate and the penal law punishes them both, there cannot be a conspiracy unless an additional conspirator is involved who was not essential to crime.
ATTEMPT
To intentionally try to commit a crime without success.
D cannot be guilty of the crime of attempted criminal negligence or a reckless conduct crime. Thus, there can be no crime of “attempted felony murder” or attempted involuntary (reckless) manslaughter.
- Common law attempt: requires some activity beyond mere preparation.
- MPC - D must take a substantial step toward the commission of the crime (e.g., lying in wait, searching for V, surveying the location of crime)
NOTE: D may be convicted for an attempted strict liability crime prohibiting conduct. Pros must prove D tried to have sex knowing V was underage and D was over 21 without success.
When D is successful, attempt merges to completed crime.
DEFENSE: legal impossibility, abandonment (MPC)
NOT A DEFENSE: factual impossibility, abandonment (at CL only)
HOMICIDE
One human being causes the death of another
Includes murder AND manslaughter.
If statute says that murder is a killing with malice aforethought, pros must prove:
1) D intended to kill
2) D intended to cause great bodily harm
3) D exhibited grave indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life
4) felony murder
ANY intentional killing without justification, excuse, or mitigation is a killing with malice aforethought
FIGS MAN
F - felony murder
I - intentional murder
G - D’s conduct created a grave risk of death/D aware of risk and consciously disregarded it by displaying a depraved indifference to human life (depraved heart murder)
S - serious bodily injury resulting in death
MAN - manslaughter (voluntary or involuntary)
Causation
Courts inquire whether D’s conduct was both:
1) factual cause (but for D’s conduct, V would not have been injured)
2) proximate cause (D’s conduct was a substantial factor in V’s death)
An act that hastens an inevitable result is still the legal cause of that result.
A foreseeable intervening cause does not break the causal chain (e.g., negligent medical care or V refused medical treatment). D will not be liable for crim conduct ONLY if an intervening act was so out of the ordinary that it is no longer fair to hold D criminally responsible.
Felony Murder
Felony murder usually is unintended homicide occurring during a dangerous felony (in attempt, during, or immediately after).
Felony deemed to end when D reaches “safe harbor.”
ACCOMPLICES ARE GUILTY FOR ANY DEATHS CAUSED DURING THE FELONY because death is considered a foreseeable proximate result of the underlying dangerous felony.
Majority: agency theory requires felons to proximately cause the accidental killing for a felony murder to occur.
Minority: proximate cause theory - felons liable for death of innocent Vs caused by someone other than co-felon
Dangerous felonies for felony murder: BRAKERS B -burglary R - robbery A -arson K - kidnapping E - escape from policy custody after arrest R - rape S - criminal sexual assault
NOT dangerous felonies: LAB
L - larceny
A - assault
B - battery
Accomplice will not be guilty of felony murder if he is only a CUB
C - accomplice didn’t COMMIT, command, request homicide,
U - was UNARMED, and
B - had no reason to BELIEVE another co-conspirator was armed/intended to engage in conduct likely to result in death
Intentional Murder (first degree premeditated murder = specific intent)
D wanted V to die.
Majority - pros must prove D acted with “premeditation and deliberation,” “desired” to cause the death of another, and in fact caused the death of that person or a third (transferred intent).
- “Deliberation” requires cool reflection to perform the criminal act.
- “Premeditation” required a preconceived (deliberate) intent to kill.
Minority - no premed/delib. Murder simply defined as the intentional killing of another. For “intentional,” jury may consider the nature and circumstances of the act, what part of the body was attacked, whether a weapon was used.
Where D intentionally (not recklessly or negligently) used a deadly weapon and death results, jury may “infer” that D intended to kill.
Depraved Heart Murder
D creates and consciously disregards an unjustifiably, grave risk of death to his V (approaching a certainty of death); in disregarding, demonstrates a depraved indifference to the value of human life
Minority - do not recognize this type of murder –> instead, it is called reckless manslaughter or intentional murder.
intent to cause serious bodily injury resulting in death
D commits murder when she intends to cause serious bodily injury that results in the V’s death
Voluntary manslaughter
Where D commits intentional murder, but D’s intent arose under adequate provocation (circumstances of extreme emotional disturbance or in the heat or passion).
Mere insults are not sufficient provocation for manslaughter mitigation BUT adultery, aggravated battery, or serious criminal assault may be sufficient.
Words that are ABUSIVE AND INFORMATIONAL like “I screwed your wife” may be sufficient.
Imperfect self-defense: where D uses unreasonable force and causes a death, homicide is vol. manslaughter if D acted in the heat of passion.
Involuntary manslaughter
MAJORITY: Where D is aware of a substantial risk of death or bodily injury, but despite this knowledge the D proceeds to act and recklessly causes the death of another.
MINORITY: criminally negligent homicide as involuntary manslaughter - arises when D fails to perceive a substantial and unjustified high risk of death or serious bodily injury that a reasonable person would have been aware of.
For criminal negligence, the actor fails to perceive the risk; for reckless manslaughter the actor is aware of the risk and consciously disregards it.
Burglary
Common law burglary required an unconsented breaking and entering into another’s dwelling during the night with a specific intent to commit a felony therein. I BEND
I - intent to commit a felony therein
B - breaking (any force to remove a barrier to entry)
E - entering (where any part of D’s body enters premises)
N - nighttime
D - dwelling (MPC expands to any structure or vehicle used for overnight lodging or to carry on a biz)
Today:
- criminal trespass (gen intent) is entering or remaining unlawfully on realty
- burglary: criminal trespass (gen intent) + specific intent to commit a crime therein
- Burglary is a crime against habitation so D can be convicted of Burglary AND the crime attempted or committed w/in the dwelling
- MPC Affirm. Def: if building/structure was abandoned.
Arson
@ Common law: the malicious burning of a dwelling of another (reckless or intentional/not negligent)
Today, majority expanded arson to include any structure used for biz or for overnight lodging
Must be charring or burning (more than mere blackening)
most serious arsons - PIES P - pecuniary motive for setting fire I - incendiary device used E - explosives used S - someone seriously injured
Defenses
NICE MICE EVADE WASPS - affirmative defenses that must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence except for * which are ordinary defenses (negate element of charge)
N- necessity
I - infancy* (D under 7 or 18)
C - claim of title/claim of right*
E - excessively broad penal statute
M - mistake
I - insanity/intoxication
C - cub status for felony murder
E - extreme emotional disturbance
E - entrapment V - vague crim statute A - bill of attainder D - duress E - ex post facto law
W - withdrawal A - alibi* S - self defense/justification P - heat of passion S - SOL
Defense: claim of right
Asserted by a D, charged with a theft crime, who had an honest subjective good faith mistaken belief (even if unreasonable) that the property was his own or that he had the right to take it
Defense: Infancy
@ CL: infancy = complete defense for under 7 yr old
7-18 charged in juvenile court (rehab purpose; same DP rights as adults)
SCOTUS has held:
1) burden of proof in juvie pros required BARD
2) juvie entitled to counsel/miranda warnings/right to confront W/4A protections; NOT entitled to jury trial
SCOTUS has found that juvies are different - poor impulse control, greater capacity for rehabilitation
8A violation against cruel and unusual punishment for a court to impose:
1) death penalty for someone under 18 at the time of homicide
2) LWPP for a nonhomicide crime OR
3) mandatory LWPP for a homicide crime
Alibi
D charged as a principal first degree or aider/abettor accomplice (PEAS) can claim alibi. May raise a reasonable doubt as to D being at crime scene when crime occurred –> pros must prove D was there at the time. D must give Pros timely notice of W. Pros must serve notice of alibi rebuttal Ws.
Self Defense
D charged w violent crime but who claims act is justified in response to unlawful attack or threat of attack on D or TP.
Permits use of force that is reasonable under the circumstances to prevent immediate unlawful force/conduct of another.
To prove SD, D must show that he was (1) without fault; (2) is confronted with unlawful force; and (3) reasonably believes that he is threatened with imminent death or great bodily harm. Must also show that the amount of force used was necessary (excessive force is never justified).
“initial aggressor” jury charge: explains that the law denies D the right to assert justification if jury finds D was the first aggressor. May use force ONLY IF:
- they effectively withdraw and communicate their desire to do so; or
- V suddenly escalates the minor fight into a deadly altercation and IA has no chance to retreat
