Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

S23 > Criminal Law > Flashcards

Criminal Law Flashcards

1
Q

Second-degree murder

A
  1. Actus reus
  2. Causation
  3. Mens rea
    A. Malice aforethought
    i. Intent to kill
    ii. Intent to cause serious bodily harm
    iii. Gross recklessness
    iv. Felony murder
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

First-degree murder

A
  1. Actus reus
  2. Causation
  3. Mens rea
    A. Malice aforethought
    i. Intent to kill
    a. Premeditated
    b. Deliberated
    ii. Felony murder
    iii. Attempted felony murder
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Felony murder

A
  1. Analyze underlying felony
  2. Analyze felony murder statute
  3. Analyze limitations
    A. Questions of law
    i. Inherently dangerous
    ii. Merge with killing
    B. Questions of fact
    i. Res gestae
    ii. Agency
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Larceny

A
  1. Intentional
  2. Trespassory taking and carrying away of another’s property
  3. With the intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Larceny by trick

A
  1. Intentional
  2. Trespassory taking and carrying away of anther’s property (by fraud of deceit)
  3. With the intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Embezzlement

A
  1. Intentional
  2. Conversion of the property of another
  3. By someone is already in lawful possession of the property
  4. With the intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Larceny by false pretenses

A
  1. Knowingly
  2. Make a false statement of fact
  3. With the intend to defraud the victim
  4. The victim relies on the false statement to pass title (ownership) to the defendant
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Burglary

A
  1. Intentional
  2. Trespassory entering a structure
  3. With intent to commit a felony therein
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Robbery

A
  1. Intentionally
  2. Taking and carrying away the property of another from their person or immediate presence
  3. By force or threat of force
  4. With the intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Attempts

A
  1. Actus reus
    A. Dangerously proximate; or
    B. What has already been done
  2. Mens rea
    A. Intent to perform actus reus
    B. Intent to commit underlying offense
    i. Results
    ii. Conduct
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Accomplice liability

A
  1. Actus reus
    A. Actual assistance
    B. Omission
  2. Mens rea
    A. Intends to assist
    B. Intends to commit underlying crime
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Conspiracy

A
  1. Actus reus
    A. Agreement
    B. Overt act
  2. Mens rea
    A. Intent to enter into agreement
    B. Intent for target offense to be committed
    i. Results
    ii. Conduct
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Provocation

A
  1. Defendant was actually provoked (subjective)
  2. The reasonable person in D’s shoes (given facts and circumstances) would have been provoked (legally adequate provocation) (objective)
  3. Defendant didn’t have sufficient time to cool off (subjective)
  4. The reasonable person in D’s shoes wouldn’t have cooled off (objective)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Mistake of fact

A

Specific intent: honest mistake

General intent: honest (subjective) and reasonable (objective) mistake

Negates mens rea

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

Involuntary intoxication

A

Possible situations:

  1. Where someone else is at fault through force, duress, or fraud (e.g., your drink is spiked)
  2. Honest and reasonable mistake (e.g., oops, I thought that pill was Aspirin—not Molly)
  3. Pathological intoxication: a psychological or physiological condition that renders someone abnormally susceptible to a legal intoxicant (e.g., one beer = blackout drunk). Need expert testimony to prove this.
  4. Unexpectedly intoxicated by taking prescription medicine: where a person does not know and has no reason to know that taking the prescription will cause an intoxicating effect. Likely need expert testimony to prove this.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Voluntary intoxication

A

Willing ingestion or injection of any drink, drug, or other intoxicating substance that the defendant knows can produce an intoxicating effect

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

Self defense

A

The defendant must have an honest and reasonable belief that:

  1. The victim threatened imminent force
  2. It was necessary to use force to repel the threat of force
  3. The force used was proportional to the force threatened
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Necessity

A
  1. Clear and imminent danger (“significant evil”)
  2. Defendant must reasonably believe that breaking the law will directly abate the danger
  3. No effective legal alternatives
  4. Balance the harms: the harm in breaking the law is less than the harm in not breaking the law
  5. No clear legislative intent to prohibit necessity defense under the facts; and
  6. Defendant must have clean hands (i.e., did not substantially contribute to the harm defendant seeks to avoid)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Duress

A

When a person commits any offense, except for (most) homicides, he or she can successfully raise a duress defense when:

  1. Another person threatened imminent deadly harm or serious bodily injury—to the defendant or a third person—if the defendant does not commit the offense
  2. The defendant reasonably believed that the threat was real (would be carried out)
  3. The defendant had no reasonable opportunity to escape
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Entrapment

A

Subjective test:

  1. The question is whether the defendant had the “predisposition” to commit the offense before law enforcement personnel got involved in the situation. This test focuses on the defendant’s mental state.
  2. “It is only when the Government’s deception actually implants the criminal design in the mind of the defendant that the defense of entrapment comes into play.”

Objective test:

  1. The question is whether law enforcement stepped over the line of appropriate behavior.
  2. Here, the idea is that the purpose of the entrapment defense is “to prohibit reprehensible governmental methods and practices in the obtaining of a conviction.”
  3. How do we know? Would these tactics convince a reasonable, law-abiding person to commit a crime?
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Imperfect self defense

A

When the defendant tries to raise a self-defense claim but it fails for some reasons (only one of three elements can fail)

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

Defense of habitation

A

Stand-alone justification defense that may apply when a resident uses deadly force to prevent an intruder from entering his or her residence

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

Defense of others

A

Did the defendant honestly and reasonably believe that it was necessary to use force (non-deadly or deadly) to repel a threat of imminent force (non-deadly or deadly) to a third party?

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

Defense of property

A

To make out a successful defense of property claim:

  1. The defendant must honestly and reasonably believe that it is necessary to use non-deadly force to prevent imminent dispossession of personal or real property (or to repossess property promptly after dispossession)
  2. The defendant may never use deadly force merely to protect personal property
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Insanity

A

A person is not guilty by reason of insanity if:

  1. At the time of the criminal act
  2. They were laboring under such a defect of reason, arising from a mental disorder or defect, that, as a result (i.e., medical experts demonstrate that defendant suffered from a mental illness with a causal connection to one of the two situations below):
    A. They did not know the nature and quality of the act they were committing; or
    B. If they did know it, they did not know that it was wrong
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Voluntary act

A

A voluntary act is a willed or volitional bodily movement

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

Morissette factors

A
  1. The crime is newly created (as opposed to a crime that originated in common law);
  2. The crime is a public welfare offense (a malum prohibitum crime): i.e., the statute is aimed at protecting public health, safety, and welfare—rather than aimed at infractions against specific individuals. Public welfare crimes often punish omissions (e.g., failing to satisfy a regulatory duty to create a safe workplace).
  3. The penalties are relatively light or non-serious; and
  4. The stigma/perception of moral wrongdoing attached to a conviction is relatively low.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Legal duty to act

A
  1. Special status relationship (e.g., spouses, parents).
  2. Civil law obligation (e.g., a contract).
  3. Defendant creates a risk of harm to the victim.
  4. Defendant voluntarily assumes care of the victim and so secluded that person as to prevent others from helping.
  5. Duty imposed by statute (e.g., pay taxes, register car).
29
Q

Inherently dangerous

A

Statutory interpretation: Examine the elements of the felony in the abstract, and, in some cases, rely on scientific evidence to fill in the gaps.

Ask whether the felony can be committed without causing a substantial risk of death.

If the felony can be committed without creating a substantial risk of death, it is not inherently dangerous and it cannot serve as the predicate felony for felony murder.

30
Q

Merger doctrine

A

A felony cannot serve as the predicate felony for felony murder if it is an integral part and effectively included in fact in the homicide. The felony must be an independent crime from whatever conduct constituted the circumstances surrounding the killing itself.

31
Q

Trespassory

A

“Trespassory” means without the owner’s consent or other lawful justification.

32
Q

Taking and carrying away

A

“Taking and carrying away” means asportation:

  1. Assertion of control over; and
  2. Some movement of the item, no matter how slight
33
Q

Conversion

A

“Conversion” means some act that seriously interferes with the owner’s ability to use the property (e.g., selling, giving away, seriously damaging, consuming).

34
Q

Lawful possession

A

Someone who is in lawful possession of the property typically includes custodians who have been given permission to possess the property—as long as that permission has not been obtained by fraud or deceit (this would be larceny by trick). This is a common factual situation in confidential or fiduciary relationships (e.g., the bank teller who pockets customers’ money).

35
Q

Force

A

“Force” can mean any force. E.g., pulling a purse from the victim’s hand or from their shoulder may be sufficient force. This will be a question of fact for the jury.

36
Q

Mere preparation

A

A criminal attempt occurs when a person, with the specific intent to commit an offense, performs acts towards the commission of that offense. The act or acts must go beyond mere preparation.

Analyze both:

  1. The actus reus (whether the acts go beyond mere preparation); and
  2. The mens rea (whether the defendant intends to perform the acts that constitute the actus reus, and whether the defendant had the intent to commit the underlying offense).
37
Q

Complicity

A

Complicity—being an accomplice to a crime—is not itself a crime.

38
Q

Actual assistance

A

The actus reus for accomplice liability is actual assistance. The accomplice must assist the principal in the first degree with the commission of the crime. The assistance does not have to be substantial. Any assistance is sufficient. Assistance can be acts or even words.

But the secondary party must assist in fact; an intent to assist by itself is not sufficient (e.g., if the defendant pries open a window, but P1 walks in through a door, then the actus reus is not satisfied).

39
Q

Physical assistance

A

Acts. E.g., driving the getaway car, casing the scene, buying the gun.

40
Q

Psychological assistance

A

Words—inciting, soliciting, or encouraging the commission of the crime. It is a question of fact for the jury whether P1 was assisted in fact by the defendant’s verbal conduct. Even though “mere presence” or passive acquiescence is insufficient, permitting assistance by influential words means that assistance will often be mere presence + very little else.

41
Q

Omission

A

Did the defendant have a duty to act? E.g., a parent who watches someone beat their child to death and does nothing satisfies the actus reus requirement for accomplice liability.

42
Q

Agreement

A
  1. Does not have to be in writing (seldom is).
  2. Does not have to be express (is often implied).
  3. Is often proved by circumstantial evidence suggesting choreography between the parties.
  4. Can be proven even if not every party has knowledge of every detail.
  5. Each co-conspirator must simply be aware of the agreement’s essential nature.
43
Q

Bilateral agreement

A
  1. Bilateral “meeting of the minds”
  2. No agreement with feigning officer
44
Q

Overt act

A
  1. Can be any act—no matter how trivial.
  2. The overt act can be much less substantial than the conduct that “goes beyond mere preparation” required for attempt crimes.
45
Q

Pinkerton liability

A

Conspirator can be found guilty of:

  1. Conspiracy
  2. Target offense
  3. Any other offense committed by co-conspirators
    A. In furtherance
    B. Reasonably foreseeable consequence
46
Q

Heat of passion

A

The overarching distinction between first-degree P&D murder and voluntary manslaughter is whether the defendant intentionally killed with a “cool head” or a hot head (in the “heat of passion”).

47
Q

Pathological intoxication

A

A psychological or physiological condition that renders someone abnormally susceptible to a legal intoxicant (e.g., one beer equals blackout drunk). Need expert testimony to prove this.

48
Q

Initial aggressors

A
  1. The defendant cannot be acquitted due to self-defense if the defendant was the initial aggressor.
  2. What does it mean to be the initial aggressor?
  3. Some jurisdictions require an actual threat of physical harm. Others simply require the defendant to have in some way provoked the confrontation.
  4. Whether defendant is an initial aggressor is a question of fact for the jury.
  5. If defendant is an initial aggressor, defendant can still raise a self-defense claim if they clearly withdraw from conflict and communicate that withdrawal by words or actions.
  6. Some jurisdictions permit defendant to raise an imperfect self-defense argument even if defendant was initial aggressor (assuming other elements are met). This results in a voluntary manslaughter conviction.
49
Q

Duty to retreat

A
  1. Defendant has a duty to retreat (rather than immediately resorting to deadly force) if there are reasonably safe avenues of retreat available.
  2. Whether there are reasonably safe avenues of retreat will always be a question of fact for the jury.
  3. But the duty to retreat does not apply if defendant is threatened in their own home.
50
Q

Castle doctrine

A

No duty to retreat if defendant is threatened with serious bodily harm or deadly force in their own home (or in the immediate premises surrounding your home).

51
Q

Stand your ground

A

Under some statutes, there is no duty to retreat if defendant is threatened with serious bodily harm or deadly force any place they have a lawful right to be. This will be based purely on what the statute says.

52
Q

Significant evil

A

Clear and imminent danger

53
Q

Res gestae

A

The requirement has two parts:

  1. The felony and the killing must be connected in time: i.e., for the felony murder rule to apply, the killing must occur during the “commission of” the felony. The commission of the felony continues until the felon has reached a place of temporary safety (i.e., when the defendant is not longer actively fleeing or trying to escape from the crime scene).
  2. There must be some causal connection between the felonious conduct and the killing. The majority rule simply requires actual (“but for”) causation.
54
Q

Agency

A

A felon cannot be convicted of felony murder if the killing is the direct result of a third party (someone who is not the felon or the felon’s agent). If a third party is the direct cause of death, this essentially breaks the causal chain.

55
Q

Criminal mental states

A
  1. Purposely
  2. Knowingly
  3. Recklessly
  4. Criminally negligent
  5. Strict liability
56
Q

Entry

A

An entry is accomplished if the defendant puts any part of their body, even the tip of their little finger, into the structure.

57
Q

Premeditated

A

Some quantity of time sufficient for deliberation. Premeditation can happen in an instant.

58
Q

Deliberated

A

The quality of thought. Was the killing done with a cool-head? Did the defendant reflect about the consequences of actions?

59
Q

Involuntary manslaughter

A
  1. Actus reus
  2. Causation
  3. Mens rea
    A. Gross negligence
60
Q

Voluntary manslaughter

A
  1. Actus reus
  2. Causation
  3. Mens rea
    A. Malice aforethought
    i. Intent to kill
    ii. Provocation
    a. Actually provoked
    b. Reasonable person would be provoked
    c. No time to cool off
    d. Reasonable person would not have cooled off
61
Q

Concurrence

A

There must be a concurrence between the mens rea and the actus reus, meaning that the bad act (or omission) and the culpable mental state must be present at the same time; the defendant’s guilty mind must have compelled his or her voluntary act or omission.

62
Q

Intent

A

Conscious object: If an actor’s conscious object or purpose is to cause a certain result or to engage in certain prohibited conduct (depending on whether the crime is a result or conduct crime, which we will discuss soon); or

Knowledge to a virtual certainty: An actor intends social harm if an actor knows to a virtual certainty their actions will cause the social harm or that they are engaging in prohibited conduct

63
Q

Knowledge

A

Most courts find that, where knowledge (e.g., “knowingly” or “knows”) is a mens rea term in a statute, the prosecution must show that the defendant was “aware” of a fact or “correctly believed” that the fact exists.

64
Q

Gross recklessness

A

The defendant was subjectively aware that his or her conduct created a substantial and unjustified risk of death, yet the defendant consciously disregards that risk.

65
Q

Gross negligence

A

The defendant should have been aware that his or her conduct created a substantial and unjustifiable risk of death but was unaware and engaged in that conduct. Ask: Was the risk of such nature and degree that the failure to be aware of it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person in the defendant’s situation would exercise?

66
Q

Direct cause

A

There are no intervening causes between the defendant’s voluntary act (or omission) and the social harm.

67
Q

Intervening cause

A

An act or event which (1) occurs after the D’s voluntary act (or omission) and before the social harm; and (2) causally contributes to the social harm.

68
Q

Dependent intervening cause

A

One that is responsive to the defendant’s voluntary act (or omission).

69
Q

Independent intervening cause

A

One that is coincidental to the defendant’s voluntary act (or omission); i.e., the act or event would have occurred anyway.

S23 (4 decks)

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