Criminal Law

Question 1

Physical Act and examples of bodily movements that do NOT qualify for criminal liability

Answer 1

Defendant must have performed voluntary physical act or failed to act

Examples of bodily movements that DO NOT qualify for criminal liability include:
o Conduct that is not the product of the person’s own volition
o A reflexive or convulsive act
 Seizure
o An act performed while unconscious or asleep

Question 2

Legal Duty to Act?

Answer 2

There is no general good Samaritan law requiring people to help others in trouble unless he has a duty to do so – no matter how easy it would have been to render help!!

Duty to Act?
- by statute (requirement to file a tax return)
- by contract (ON DUTY lifeguard or nurse)
- relationship between parties (parents to child)
- voluntary assumption of care by D for the victim
- D created the peril for the victim

Question 3

Specific Intent Crimes and the 2 defenses

Answer 3

SCALE FR BF
S - Solicitation
C - Conspiracy
A - Attempt
L - Larceny
E - Embezzlement
F - False Pretenses
R - Robbery
B - Burglary
F - Forgery

and of course First Degree Premeditated Murder

Two Defenses to Specific Intent Crimes
- Voluntary Intoxication
- Unreasonable mistake of fact

Question 4

Malice Crimes and the intent required

Answer 4

Common Law Murder (2nd degree murder) AND Arson

Intent - reckless disregard of obvious or high risk that a particular harmful result will occur

Question 5

General Intent Crimes

Answer 5

D has awareness of all factors contributing to the crime

All other crimes that do not require specific intent, malicious intent, or are not strict liability crimes…

Examples -> Battery, rape, kidnapping, false imprisonment…

Question 6

Strict Liability Crimes and the intent to do

Answer 6

Selling alcohol to minors and statutory rape

No mens rea requirement… D is simply guilty by just committing the act

Exam Tip
If the crime is in the administrative, regulatory, or morality area and there are no adverbs in the statute such as “knowingly,” “willfully,” or “intentionally,” then the statute is meant to be a no intent crime of strict liability

Question 7

MPC Fault Standards
Purposely ->
Knowingly ->
Recklessly ->
Negligently ->

Answer 7

P -> Conscious object to engage in proscribed conduct
K -> Awareness that conduct is of a particular nature or will cause a particular result
R - Conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk
N -> Failure to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk

Question 8

Transferred Intent

Answer 8

Defendant intended harm to a different victim or object

Applies to homicide, battery, and arson

Question 9

Common Law Parties to a Crime

Answer 9

Principals in the 1st Degree
o Persons who engage in act that constitute the crime
Principals in the 2nd Degree
o Persons who aid, advise, or encourage and are present
Accessories Before the Fact
o Persons who assisted or encouraged but were not present
Accessories After the Fact
o Persons who, with knowledge other committed felony, assisted them to escape
arrest or punishment

Question 10

Modern Statutes Parties to a Crime

Answer 10

Principal = one who actually engaged in the act that causes the criminal result

Accomplice = one who aids, advises, or encourages the principal in the commission of crime

Question 11

Withdrawal from Accomplice Liability - 3 elements

Answer 11

Must occur BEFORE crimes becomes unstoppable
RAN
1. Repudiate encouragement
2. Attempt to neutralize any assistance
3. Notify police or taking other actions to prevent the crime

Question 12

Conspiracy - 4 elements

Answer 12

1. Agreement between 2 or more persons (bilateral approach)
2. Intent to enter into agreement
3. Intent to achieve objection (criminal or unlawful)
4. Overt act required by majority of states (NOT REQUIRED FOR COMMON LAW)
   - Any little act, even acts or preparation

MPC
- require just a unilateral approach
Ex. -> D can be convicted of conspiracy if they conspire with one person only and that person is a police officer working undercover

Question 13

Conspiracy - Liability for co-conspirator’s crimes, defenses, and punishment

Answer 13

Liability for co-conspirator
A conspirator can be convicted of a crime committed by another conspirator if the crimes were (1) committed in furtherance of the objectives of the conspiracy AND (2) the crimes were foreseeable

Defenses
- Factual Impossibility is NOT a defense
- Generally, Withdrawal is NOT a defense
- must perform an affirmative act that notifies ALL co-conspirators of their
withdrawal in time for the members to abandon their plans
- if crime is complete - guilty of conspiracy… don’t care if they had 2nd feelings
Punishment
Conspiracy and completely crimes are distinct offenses - NO MERGER

Question 14

Solicitation - 2 elements

Answer 14

Asking a person to commit a crime with the specific intent that they actually commit the crime…

Can still be convicted of solicitation if the person says NO to you asking…

Merger - solicitor cannot be punished for both the solicitation and these other offenses

Question 15

Attempt - 2 elements and a defense

Answer 15

Overt act done with specific intent to commit a crime that falls short of completing it
- Specific intent and overt act (mere preparation does not suffice)
- Tests for overt act…
- Traditional/Proximity test -> dangerously close to completion
- Modern -> Substantial step in course of conduct

Defense - Abandonment
- NOT A DEFENSE AT COMMON LAW
- Defense under MPC if voluntary and complete

Question 16

Common Law Murder

Answer 16

Unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought

Malice aforethought
- Intent to kill
- Intent to inflict great bodily injury
- Reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life
- Intent to commit a felony

Question 17

First Degree Premeditated Murder

Answer 17

Defendant made decision to kill in cool and dispassionate manner and actually reflected on idea of killing, even if only for a very brief period

D must have acted with intent or knowledge that their conduct would cause death!
- 1st degree requires specific intent which can be negated by defense of voluntary intoxication

Many state say homicide of a police officer is 1st degree murder as long as D knows the victim is a police officer and they are acting in line of duty!

Question 18

Felony Murder

Answer 18

Classified as First Degree Murder

-To convict, (1) that the defendant committed or attempted to commit a felony (i.e., he is factually guilty of the felony), (2) killing must take place while the felony is being committed, (3) felony must be independent of the killing, and (4) death must be a foreseeable result of the commission of the felony
- BARRK
- Burglary
- Arson
- Rape
- Robbery
- Kidnapping

Question 19

Felony Murder - Proximate cause and agency theory

Answer 19

Proximate Cause -> Felon liable for deaths of innocent victims caused by someone other the co-felon

Agency Theory -> Felon liable only if killing committed by felon or agent

Question 20

Second Degree Murder

Answer 20

Killing that is done with a depraved heart (reckless disregard) or any murder that is not first degree murder :)

Question 21

Voluntary Manslaughter

Answer 21

Killing that would be murder but for the existence of adequate provocation

Adequate Provocation ->
1. Provocation would arouse sudden and intense passion in mind of ordinary person
causing them to lose self-control
- Exposure to a threat of deadly force, finding your spouse in bed with
another, or being a victim of serious battery
2. D was in fact provoked (lost control)
3. No time for reasonable person to cool off
4. D in fact did not cool off

Question 22

Involuntary Manslaughter

Answer 22

TWO TYPES
- Killing committed with criminal negligence (or recklessness under MPC)
- Killing committed during commission of unlawful act

Negligence
Requires a greater deviation from the reasonable person standard that is required for civil liability; the defendant’s behavior must be a substantial deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in the same situation

Question 23

Abandoned and Malignant Heart Murder (Common Law)

Answer 23

Involves a high risk of death while involuntary manslaughter based on recklessness requires only a substantial risk

Question 24

Causation

Cause-in-fact

Proximate Cause

Answer 24

Causation
- D’s conduct must be both the cause-in-fact and the proximate cause of the victim’s death

Cause-in-Fact
- D’s conduct is cause-in-fact of the result if the result would not have occurred BUT FOR the D’s conduct

Proximate Cause
- Natural and probable consequence of the conduct
- Superseding factors break the chain of proximate causation

3rd Party’s negligent medical care and the victim’s refusal of medical treatment for religious reasons are both foreseeable risks, so the defendant would be liable!!

Question 25

Battery and Aggravated Battery

Answer 25

Unlawful application of force to the person of another resulting in either bodily injury or an offensive touching - ACTUAL TOUCHING OCCURS*** - General Intent Crime!!!!! - Does not have to be intentional AG - Battery with a deadly weapon - Battery resulting in serious bodily harm and - Battery of a child, woman, or police officer

Question 26

Assault and Aggravated Assault

Answer 26

Assault - SPECIFIC INTENT CRIME - Attempt to commit battery - Intentional creation (other than by mere words) of reasonable apprehension of imminent bodily harm - NO ACTUAL TOUCHING OCCURS*** Aggravated Assault - Use of deadly or dangerous weapon OR - With the intent to rape, maim, or murder

Question 27

False Imprisonment

Answer 27

Unlawful confinement of a person without valid consent o MPC requires the confinement must “interfere substantially” with the victim’s liberty o It is not confinement to simply prevent someone from going where they desire to go, as long as alternative routes are available to them

Question 28

Kidnapping and Aggravated Kidnapping

Answer 28

Unlawful confinement of a person that involves either: o (1) some movement of the victim, or o (2) concealment of the victim in a “secret” place AK Includes kidnapping for ransom, kidnapping for the purpose of committing other crimes, kidnapping for offensive purpose, and child stealing (the consent of a child to their detention or movement is not of importance because a child is incapable of giving valid consent)

Question 29

Larceny

Answer 29

Specific Intent Crime - A taking - and carrying away - of tangible personal property - of another - by trespass - with intent to permanently deprive

Question 30

Embezzlement

Answer 30

Specific Intent Crime - The fraudulent - conversion - of personal property - of another - by a person in lawful possession of that property

Question 31

False Pretenses and Larceny by Trick

Answer 31

Specific Intent Crime - Obtaining title (ownership) - To personal property of another - By an intentional false statement of a past or existing fact - With intent to defraud the other Same as above except obtaining custody or possession of the property = larceny by trick

Question 32

Robbery

Answer 32

Specific Intent Crime - A taking - Of personal property - From the other’s person or presence - By force or threats of immediate death or physical injury - With the intent to permanently deprive them of it

Question 33

Extortion

Answer 33

Obtaining property by means of threats or exposing information

Question 34

Receipt of Stolen Property

Answer 34

- Receiving possession and control - Of stolen personal property - Known to have been obtained in a manner constituting a criminal offense - By another person - With the intent to permanently deprive the owner of their interest in it

Question 35

Forgery

Answer 35

Specific Intent Crime - Making or altering - a writing with apparent legal significance - so that it is false - with intent to defraud

Question 36

Burglary at Common Law and Modern Statutes

Answer 36

Specific Intent Crime - A breaking - And entry (any part of body enters into the house) - Of a dwelling (used for sleeping purposes) - Of another - At nighttime - With the specific intent to commit a felony in the structure Modern Statutes - Eliminate many of the “technicalities” of common law burglary, including the requirements of a breaking, that the structure be a dwelling, that the act occur at nighttime, and the intent be to commit a felony (misdemeanor) is enough

Question 37

Arson at Common Law and Modern Statutes

Answer 37

- The malicious (reckless disregard) - Burning - Of the dwelling - Of another Modern statutes - Expands criminal liability - Include damage caused by explosion, and expanded the types of property that may be destroyed to include commercial structures, cars, trains, etc… Damages Required - Scorching (blackening by smoke or discoloration by heat) is not sufficient - Charring is sufficient

Question 38

Insanity Defenses M'Naghten Irresistible Impulse Durham Test ALI or MPC Test

Answer 38

Defense to ALL crimes M'Naghten -> D does not know right from wrong or does not understand his actions Irresistible Impulse -> unable to control their actions or conform their conduct to the law Durham (rare bc only New Hampshire) -> but for the mental illness, D would not have done the act ALI or MPC -> lacked substantial capacity to either (1) appreciate the criminality of their conduct OR (2) conform their conduct to the requirements of law

Question 39

Self-Defense -> Nondeadly force

Answer 39

Person without fault may use such force as person reasonably believes is necessary to protect themselves from imminent use of unlawful force

Question 40

Self-Defense -> Deadly force

Answer 40

Person may use deadly force in self-defense if person 1. Is without fault 2. Is confronted with unlawful force 3. Reasonably believes they are threatened with imminent death or great bodily harm **Majority says no duty to retreat!**

Question 41

Self-Defense -> Defense of others

Answer 41

Right to defend others if D reasonably believes person has right to use force in own defense - Generally, no need for a special relationship

Question 42

Defense of Duress

Answer 42

Defense to crime, other than intentional homicide, that D reasonably believed another person would imminently inflict death or great bodily harm if D did not commit crime

Question 43

Defense of Necessity

Answer 43

Defense that D reasonably believed commission of crime was necessary to avoid imminent and greater injury to society This test is objective

Question 44

Defense of Mistake or Ignorance of Fact

Answer 44

Relevant to criminal liability if it shows D lacked state of mind required for crime Specific intent a Mistake can be unreasonable Any other state of mind a Mistake must be reasonable

Question 45

Defense of Mistake or Ignorance of Law

Answer 45

Generally, NOT a defense that D believed that their activity would not be a crime, even if that belief was reasonable and based on the advice of an attorney

Question 46

Defense of Entrapment

Answer 46

Occurs if the intent to commit the crime originated not with the defendant BUT with law enforcement officers - 1. Criminal design originated with law enforcement - 2. D not predisposed to commit crime ***Undercover officer -> discuss crime of entrapment -> then 99.9% of time say Entrapment is not a valid defense because almost always the Defendant was going to commit crime anyways!***