Criminal Law Flashcards
Specific Intent Crimes
solicitation, attempt, conspiracy, assault, larceny, robbery, burglary, forgery, false pretenses, embezzlement, and first degree premeditated murder
MPC Mental States
a. Purposely—conscious object to engage in act or cause a certain result
b. Knowingly—as to nature of conduct: aware of the nature of conduct or that certain circumstances exist; as to result: knows that conduct will necessarily or very likely cause result
c. Recklessly—conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that circumstances exist or a prohibited result will follow, and this disregard is a gross deviation from a “reasonable person” standard of care
d. Negligently—failure to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that circumstances exist or a prohibited result will follow, and this disregard is a gross deviation from a “reasonable person” standard of care
Inchoate Offenses
Solicitation, conspiracy and attempt
Solicitation
Elements:
a. Asking someone to commit a crime
b. With the intent that the crime be committed
Defenses:
a. The refusal or the legal incapacity of the solicitee is no defense
b. If legislative intent is to exempt solicitor, that is a defense
Conspiracy
Elements:
a. An agreement;
b. An intent to agree;
c. An intent to achieve the objective of the agreement; and
d. An overt act (most jurisdictions)
Liability—each conspirator is liable for all crimes of other conspirators if foreseeable and in furtherance of the conspiracy
Defenses:
a. Withdrawal
1) General rule—can only withdraw from liability for future crimes; no withdrawal from conspiracy possible because agreement coupled with act completes crime of conspiracy
2) M.P.C. recognizes voluntary withdrawal as defense if the defendant thwarts conspiracy (e.g., informs police)
b. Factual impossibility is no defense Merger
No merger—can be convicted of both conspiracy and substantive offense
attempt
Elements:
a. Specific intent; and
b. Overt act—a substantial step in the direction of the commission of the crime (mere preparation not enough)
Larceny
- taking
- carrying away
- of tangible personal property
- of another
- by trespass
- with intent to permanently deprive or for an unreasonable time deprive the person of his interest in the property
false pretenses
- obtaining title
- to the property of another
- by an intentional (or in some states knowing) false statement of past or existing fact
- with intent to defraud the other
Common Law Burglary
(i) breaking and entering (ii) into the dwelling of another (iii) at nighttime (vi) with the intent to commit a felony therein.
Modern Statutory Burglary
(i) may be committed during the day or night, (ii) remaining in the structure (iii) with the intent to commit an offense replaces the “breaking” requirement, and (vi) the types of structures that may be burglarized has been expanded to include commercial structures (and even yards and conveyances such as cars).
kidnapping
confinement of a person that involves either movement of the victim or concealment of the victim in a secret place.
before entering a guilty plea the judge must ensure that the defendant knows and understands:
(i) The nature of the charge to which the plea is offered and the crucial elements of the crime charged; (ii) The maximum possible penalty and any mandatory minimum (but the failure to explain special parole terms is not fatal); and (iii) That he has a right not to plead guilty and that, if he does, he waives the right to trial.
when is duress an available defense?
A defendant may commit an otherwise criminal act (other than homicide), provided that he believes that death or great bodily harm will be inflicted if he does not commit the crime. At common law, duress is not a defense to homicide; thus, the statement that “duress is a defense to any crime” is incorrect. At common law, duress is not available as a defense if the defendant commits a crime to prevent harm to a dwelling. The threat of harm must be to the defendant himself or to a third person.
M’Naughten Rule
The M’Naghten rule provides that a defendant is entitled to an acquittal if the proof establishes that (i) a disease of the mind; (ii) caused a defect of reason; (iii) such that the defendant lacked the ability at the time of his actions to either know the wrongfulness of his actions or understand the nature and quality of his actions.
irresistible impulse test
a defendant is entitled to acquittal if the proof establishes that, because of a mental illness, the defendant was unable to control his actions or to conform his conduct to the law.
cruel and unusual punishment
A penalty that is grossly disproportionate to the offense committed is cruel and unusual punishment. Such a penalty violates the Eighth Amendment.
felony murder doctrine
a killing during the course of a felony is murder. Under conspiracy and accomplice liability law, all participants in the felony will be liable for murder if the killing was foreseeable. Agency theory provides that the killing must have been caused by the defendant or someone acting as the defendants agent ie and accomplice. The majority Redline view is that liability for felony murder cannot be based on the death of a co-felon from resistance by the victim or police pursuit.
larceny by trick
if the thief obtains possession by fraud or misrepresentation
accomplice liability
an accomplice is one who (i) with the intent to assist the principal and the intent that the principal commit the substantive office (ii) actually aids counsels or encourages the principal before or doing the commission of the crime. Most courts hold that mere knowledge that a crime may result from the aid provided is insufficient for accomplice liability, at least where the aid involves the sale of ordinary goods at ordinary prices.
When the substantive crime has recklessness or negligence as its mens rea, most jurisdictions hold that the intent element is satisfied if the accomplice (1) intended to facilitate the commission of the crime, and (2) acted with recklessness or negligence (which ever is required)
common law murder
killing of another human being with malice aforethought. Malice = defendants (i) intent to kill (ii) intent to inflict serious bodily injury (iii) reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life; or (vi) intent to commit a felony.
Defenses to attempt
Defenses:
a. Factual impossibility is no defense
1) Factual impossibility arises when defendant sets out to do an illegal act, but cannot complete the act due to some unknown reason
b. True legal impossibility is always a defense
1) Legal impossibility arises when defendant sets out to do a legal act that he believes is illegal
c. Abandonment generally no defense after the substantial steps have begun
1) M.P.C. recognizes abandonment as defense if (i) fully voluntary and (ii) complete (i.e., not a postponement due to unfavorable circumstances)
common law withdraw from conspiracy
At common law each person who took part in the planning of a crime was criminally liable for the crime of conspiracy and for each offense committed in furtherance of the conspiracy.
However, if one of the conspirators withdrew from the criminal effort before the substantive crimes occurred, he was not liable for the subsequent crimes.
To successfully withdraw the actor must notify all members of the conspiracy in time for them to have an opportunity to abandon the planned crimes.
searches by public school officials
Due to the nature of the school environment reasonable grounds fro a search are a sufficient basis to justify searches by public school officials. Neither a warrant or probable cause is required. A school search will be held reasonable if: (i) it offers a moderate have of finding evidence of wrongdoing (ii) the measures adopted to carry out the search are reasonable related to the objectives of the search and (iii) the search is not excessively intrusive in light o the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction.
battery
prima facie case (i) an act by the defendant that brings about harmful or offensive contact to the plaintiff’s person (ii) intent on the part of the defendant to bring about harmful or offensive contact to the plaintiff’s person and (iii) causation.
