Criminal Law

Question 1

Specific Intent Crimes

Answer 1

“Students Can Always Fake A Laugh Even For Ridiculous Bar Facts”

Solicitation
Conspiracy
Attempt
First Degree Murder
Assault
Larceny
Embezzlement
False Pretenses
Robbery
Burglary
Forgery

Question 2

General Intent Crime

Answer 2

“Be Fing Real Kim”
Battery
False Imprisonment
Rape
Kidnapping

Question 3

Strict Liability Crimes

Answer 3

“MARS”
Morality Crimes (bigamy, polygamy)
Administrative crimes
Regulatory crimes
Statutory Rape

Question 4

Concurrence Requirement

Answer 4

D’s criminal act and the requisite intent (men’s rea) for the crime must occur simultaneously

Watch out: if general intent crime don’t fall into this trap answer

Question 5

Causation Requirement

Answer 5

D’s conduct must be both the cause-in fact and the proximate cause of the crime committed.

Cause-in-fact → But, for D’s conduct, the result would not have occurred

Proximate Cause → The actual result is the natural and probable consequence of D’s conduct, even if it did not occur exactly as expected. A victim’s pre-existing condition that makes her more susceptible to death does not break the chain of causation.
-Superseding factors → break the chain of causation
-Intervening acts → must be entirely unforeseeable to shield D from liability (victim’s refusal of medical treatment, third party medical negligence are both foreseeable and D is liable

Question 6

Transferred Intent

Answer 6

D may be held liable if he intends the harm caused, but causes it to a different victim or object than intended.

Often applies to: Battery, Arson, and Homicide

Effect: Under transferred intent, D is usually charged with 2 crimes:
1) Attempt (to commit the originally intended crime); and
2) The actual resulting crime

**merger does not apply bc there are diff. victims

Question 7

Merger

Answer 7

Under the merger doctrine, two or more offenses merge, prohibiting D from being prosecuted separately for each crime.

Inchoate offenses → only applies to solicitation and attempt. Merger prevents D from being convicted of both solicitation/attempt and the target offense
-does not apply to conspiracy (D can be convicted of conspiracy to commit a given crime and the crime itself

Lesser Included Offenses → D cannot be convicted of a target crime and a lesser included offense
-Lesser included offense: consists of same but not all elements as the greater crime

**crimes w/ different victims never merge!

Question 8

Accomplice Liability

Answer 8

To be liable as an accomplice, one must: 1) aid, counsel, or encourage the principal to commit the crime, 2) With the intent to a) assist the principal and b) that the principal commit the crime

Scope of Liability: Accomplice is liable for the crimes he committed or counseled and any other probable or foreseeable crimes committed

Withdrawal: accomplice can avoid liability by withdrawing from crime before the principal commits it. Accomplice must:
1) Repudiate prior aid or encouragement
2) Do all that is possible to counteract the prior aid; and
3) Do so before the chain of events is in motion and unstoppable

Member of a protected class → those protected by a criminal statute are not liable as accomplices

Question 9

Accessory After the Fact

Answer 9

Involves helping a known felon escape arrest, trial, or conviction

Gives rise to a separate, lesser charge than accomplice of obstruction of justice

Question 10

Solicitation

Answer 10

Inciting, urging, or otherwise asking another to commit a crime with the intent that they commit the crime.

Merges with the target offense → solicitation is complete when D asks solicitee to commit the felony.
-if solicitee agrees, it gives rise to conspiracy and the solicitation merges with conspiracy and only crime remaining is conspiracy
-Does not matter if solicited party is convicted or if the solicited crime was impossible to commit

Defenses: very few defenses apply to solicitation
-Refusal by solicitee is not a defense
-Impossibility and withdrawal are not defenses
-MPC allows renunciation as a defense, but common law does NOT

Question 11

Conspiracy

Answer 11

Common Law Conspiracy:
1) Agreement b/w 2 or more ppl
2) Intent to enter into agreement
3) Intent to commit the target crime or pursue the unlawful objective

-Cannot withdraw from the conspiracy itself

______________________________________

MPC Conspiracy:
1) 1 person-unilateral
2) Intent to enter into agreement
3) Intent to commit the target crime or pursue the unlawful objective
4) An overt act in furtherance of the target crime

-Withdrawal of MPC conspiracy may be a defense if the withdrawing party thwarts the conspiracy (by stopping it or notifying police)

______________________________________

Termination: conspiracy ends upon completion of target crime

Defenses:
-Impossibility is NOT a defense to conspiracy

Question 12

Attempt

Answer 12

An act done with 1) the specific intent to commit a crime, 2) that constitutes an overt or substantial step towards committing the crime but 3) falls short of completing the crime.

Overt Act: D must commit an act beyond mere preparation
-MPC → D must take a substantial step towards committing the target offense
-Common law → requires an act that is dangerously close to success
(if silent, apply substantial step)

Defenses:
-Legal impossibility is a defense to attempt
-Factual impossibility is not a defense
-Abandonment is not a defense. Under majority rule, liability for attempt arises once D commits an overt act concurrently with the specific intent to commit a crime

Question 13

MPC Mens Rea Standards

Answer 13

1) Purposely → when his conscious objective is to engage in certain conduct or cause a certain result

2) Knowingly → when he is aware that his conduct is of a particular nature or knows that his conduct will necessarily or very likely cause a particular result

3) Recklessly → when he knows of a substantial and unjustifiable risk and consciously disregards it

4) Negligence (objective standard) → when he fails to becomes aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk

Question 14

Murder (Common Law)

Answer 14

Unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought.

Actus Reus: Act that results in the death of another human being

Mens Rea: Malice, express malice (with intent to kill) or implied malice (felony murder)

Prosecutor can prove malice or intent if def has any of the following states of mind:
1) Intent to kill (when act with purpose to kill or substantially certain death will result)
2) Intent to commit serious bodily harm
3) Reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life (depraved heart murder)
4) Intent to commit a felony (only most dangerous felonies qualify, BARRK: burglary, arson, rape, robbery, kidnapping)

Question 15

Burglary

Answer 15

Breaking and entering of the dwelling house of another at night with the intent to commit a felony therein

-breaking requires some use of force to gain entry, but minimal force is sufficient so opening a closed but unlocked door constitutes breaking
-breaking can be constructive such as when one gains entry by using threats or force.
-It is breaking if you know they leave a key under their doormat and use it to gain entry
-NOT burglary if person came through open window or wide open door bc then no breaking

Question 16

Larceny

Answer 16

Taking and carrying away (asportation) of tangible personal property of another by trespass with intent to permanently deprive

-Asportation → slightest movement of property is enough!!

Insufficient intent for larceny:
-belief property is defendant’s
-intent to borrow property
-intent to keep property as repayment of debt OR that they have some right to it

-Trespass → if D knew item belonged to other person & intended to convert item to own use in permanent deprivation of other person’s right
-ex: drop a wallet & D picks it up after watching you drop it. You ask D have you seen wallet & they say no.

Question 17

Embezzlement

Answer 17

Fraudulent conversion (dealing with the property in a manner inconsistent with the arrangement by which def has possession) of personal property of another by person in lawful possession of that property

Question 18

False Pretenses

Answer 18

Obtaining title by false misrepresentations of past or existing fact with the intent to defraud the victim.

1) Obtaining title (obtaining ownership rather than mere possession)
2) by false misrepresentations (must be intentional false statements)
3) of past or existing fact (misrepresentation of a future event does not qualify)
4) with the intent to defraud (victim must be deceived or must act in reliance of def’s false statement in passing title)

Question 19

Larceny by Trick

Answer 19

Victim is tricked by a misrepresentation of fact into giving up mere custody or possession of property (here def merely obtains possession, not title)

Contrast false pretenses, where victim gives up title to property

Question 20

Robbery

Answer 20

1) Taking
2) of personal property of another
3) from the other’s person or presence (including anywhere in the vicinity)
4) by force or intimidation (threats of immediate death or physical injury to the victim, a family member, or some person in the victim’s presence)
-force or threats must be used either to gain possession of the property OR to retain possession immediately after such possession has been accomplished. (ex: man grabbed woman’s purse off seat & pushed her away as he ran out of subway car. He used force to retain possession of the purse immediately after he grabbed it, which satisfies the force requirement.)
5) with intent to permanently deprive them of it

Robbery is basically larceny with violence or intimidation.

Question 21

Extortion

Answer 21

(aka blackmail) Obtaining property by means of threats to do harm or expose information

Question 22

Arson

Answer 22

Arson Common Law: Malicious burning of dwelling of another

-malice → no specific intent is required. Acting with a reckless disregard of an obvious risk that the structure would burn will suffice for arson culpability

-damage required → charring is sufficient. [scorching, blackening by smoke or discoloration by heat is NOT sufficient)
Remember charring = conviction
______________________________________

Arson MPC: expand definition to include damage caused by explosion and to structures other than dwellings

Question 23

Voluntary Intoxication

Answer 23

Voluntary Intoxication is ONLY a defense to specific intent crimes.

Voluntary intoxication = D chose to consume an intoxicant
(this includes addicts and alcoholics)

-usually comes up for 1st degree murder, gets reduced to second degree or reckless murder
-also comes up with robbery

-NOT a defense for liquid courage aka you drank in order to be able to commit the crime

Question 24

Involuntary Intoxication

Answer 24

Involuntary intoxication is a defense to all crimes

Involuntary intoxication = an intoxicant is taken involuntarily if taken:
a) Without knowledge of its nature
b) Under direct duress imposed by another person, or
c) Pursuant to medical advice without notice of its intoxicating effect

Question 25

Co-Conspirator Liability

Answer 25

Each conspirator is liable for co-conspirators’ crimes that are:
1) Foreseeable AND
2) Committed in furtherance of the conspiracy

Withdrawal for Subsequent Crimes: One can withdraw from co-conspirator’s subsequent crimes, including the target offense of the conspiracy if:
1) affirmative act: withdrawing party makes an affirmative act that notifies his co-conspirators he is withdrawing
2) must be timely: withdrawal must give enough time for co-conspirators to abandon plans for the target offense
3) withdrawing party must attempt to neutralize the effect of any assistance he provided to the original conspiracy

Question 26

Involuntary Manslaughter

Answer 26

Two types of involuntary manslaughter: criminal negligence manslaughter and unlawful act manslaughter.

Question 27

Criminal Negligence Manslaughter

Answer 27

A person commits Criminal Negligence Manslaughter when he causes a death by criminal negligence.

Criminal negligence requires a greater deviation from the reasonable person standard than 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.

Some states use a Recklessness standard for involuntary manslaughter and require that the defendant have had a subjective awareness of the risk of death.

ex: drunk driver kills someone

Question 28

Unlawful Act Manslaughter

Answer 28

Unlawful act manslaughter is when a death is caused by defendant’s commission of an unlawful act.

Question 29

Duress

Answer 29

The issue is whether the defendant’s conduct was caused by the fear of death or serious bodily injury.

Under this defense, a person is not guilty of an offense, other than intentional homicide, if he performs an otherwise criminal act under the threat of imminent infliction of death or great bodily harm, provided that he reasonably believes death or great bodily harm will be inflicted on himself if he does not perform such conduct.

Question 30

Infancy as a Defense

Answer 30

Under 7 → no criminal liability

7-14 → rebuttable presumption child unable to understand wrongfulness of acts

14 & older → treated as adult

Question 31

Self-Defense: Non-Deadly Force

Answer 31

Non-deadly force may be used if D:
1) D is not at fault (not the initial aggressor) AND
2) Reasonable belief of unlawful force (D reasonably believes it is necessary to protect himself from imminent unlawful force)

No duty to retreat

Allowable force → amount of force permitted depends on the nature of the provoking offense. Generally, FORCE MUST BE PROPORTIONAL!

Question 32

Self-Defense: Deadly Force

Answer 32

Deadly force may be used if D:
1) D is not at fault (not the initial aggressor)
2) Confronted with unlawful force (attacker must use unlawful force), and
3) Reasonable belief of death or great bodily harm (D reasonably believes he is confronted with unlawful force that threatens imminent death or great bodily harm)

No duty to retreat

Question 33

Self-Defense by Initial Aggressor

Answer 33

Self-defense by the initial aggressor is available if either:

A) Initial aggressor effectively withdraws before the need for self-defense arises and communicates his desire to do so & other person still continues to attack, OR
B) Victim of the initial aggression suddenly escalates a minor dispute into a deadly altercation

Question 34

Defense of Others

Answer 34

Same rules apply as for self-defense.

D can defend another if D reasonably believes the person he is protecting could have legally defended himself.

When a person has reasonable grounds to believe that a third person is being, or is about to be, attacked, he may use such force as is reasonably necessary to protect the third person against the potential injury.

Question 35

Defense of Dwelling

Answer 35

Non-deadly Force: allowed to prevent or terminate an unlawful entry or attack on one’s dwelling

Deadly Force: may be used if one reasonably believes:
A) force is necessary to prevent attack on oneself or others by a person who made or attempted violent entry, or
B) Force is necessary to prevent entry by a person who intends to commit a felony in the dwelling.

Question 36

Defense of Property (Non-Dwelling)

Answer 36

Non-Deadly Force: may be used if 1) reasonably necessary to defend against unlawful interference with possessions or trespass on property and 2) need to use force must reasonably appear imminent

Deadly Force: NOT allowed

Question 37

Recovery of Property

Answer 37

Force is NOT allowed to regain property wrongfully taken, unless one is in immediate pursuit of the taker.

Question 38

Necessity

Answer 38

Valid defense if D believed his conduct was reasonably necessary to avoid an imminent and greater injury to society

Objective standard: D’s commission of the crime must be reasonably necessary

EXCEPTIONS: Necessity is NOT available if either:
a) crime committed results in the death of another, OR
b) D caused the events giving rise to the necessity

Question 39

Mistake of Law

Answer 39

Almost never a defense

Lacking awareness or knowledge that an act constitutes a crime, even if reasonably, is not a defense to that crime.

Exceptions: very rare but can arise where either:
a) Reasonable reliance on an invalid statute
b) Mistake or ignorance negates an element of a crime requiring knowledge of the law

Question 40

Mistake of Fact

Answer 40

Available as a defense only if it negates mens rea for the crime

Specific intent: any mistake of fact is a defense

Malice & general intent: only a reasonable mistake of fact is a defense

Strict liability: mistake of fact is never a defense

Question 41

Voluntary Mansalughter

Answer 41

Voluntary Manslaughter only adequate provocation. Voluntary manslaughter → must have intended to kill

Voluntary Manslaughter is a killing that would otherwise be murder but is **distinguishable from murder by the existence of adequate provocation.

Provocation will reduce a killing to voluntary manslaughter if it meets 4 tests:
1) Provocation must have been one that would arouse sudden and intense passion in the mind of an ordinary person such as to cause him to lose his self-control
2) The def must have in fact been provoked
3) no sufficient time b/w the provocation and the killing for the passions of a reasonable person to cool, and
4) The defendant in fact did not cool off b/w the provocation and the killing

Question 42

Felony Murder

Answer 42

Felony murder is an unintentional and foreseeable killing that is proximately caused during the attempt, commission, or flight from an inherently dangerous felony.

Inherently dangerous felonies are felonies that create a substantial risk of death or serious bodily harm. (BARRK-Burglary, Arson, Robbery, Rape, Kidnapping)

In most jurisdictions, the defendant is NOT liable for felony murder when a co-felon is killed as a result of resistance from the felony victim or police.

Innocent Victims: 2 theories
-Agency Theory (Majority view): Felon liable ONLY if killing committed by felon or agent (accomplice)
-Proximate Cause Theory (Minority view): Felon liable for deaths of innocent victims caused by someone other than co-felon

Question 43

Receiving Stolen Property

Answer 43

The crime of receipt of stolen property consists of 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 his interest in the property.

Question 44

If a Gang Leader murders someone by stabbing them & other gang members just watch but they didn’t know the killing was going to happen, can they be liable for murder too?

Answer 44

No. Murder is the intentional killing of another human being with malice aforethought. The gang members are not guilty of murder bc they took no affirmative act and were merely present at what turned out to be a crime scene.

Question 45

2 Types of Defenses?

Answer 45

1) Capacity Defenses (Insanity, Intoxication)

2) Justification Defenses: Self-defense, Defense of others, Necessity, Duress, Entrapment

Question 46

Insanity Tests

Answer 46

1) M’Naghten – (bc of a mental impairment) the def doesn’t know right from wrong or understand nature of actions

2) Irresistible Impulse Test – (def just could not resist the impulse to act) unable to control actions or conform conduct to the law

3) Durham – D will be acquitted if his actions were the product of a mental disease or defect. But for the def’s mental illness, def would not have committed the crime.

4) MPC – combo of M’Naghten + irresistible impulse → As a result of a mental disease/defect, the def lacked the ability to appreciate the criminality of his conduct OR conform his conduct to requirements of law. Success under M’Naghten or irresistible impulse test will satisfy the standard of insanity.

Question 47

Elements Required to Prove a Crime

Answer 47

1) Actus Reus
2) Mens Rea
3) Concurrence
4) Causation (actual + proximate)

Question 48

Actus Reus

Answer 48

Must be a voluntary act

-Generally, Involuntary acts do not satisfy the actus reus.
EXCEPTION: Involuntary acts will satisfy the actus reus if the def. is aware they have a condition that can result in involuntary actions AND the def failed to take reasonable steps to prevent such actions
-Involuntary acts: reflexes, bodily movements during unconsciousness or sleep

-Acts committed under duress are a voluntary act. But can use defense of duress

-Failure to act constitutes actus reus if there was a legal duty to act, the def was aware of such duty & the def could have reasonably performed the act
-Legal duty to act when: Special relationship (parent/child), statutory or contractual duty (firefighter/lifeguard), voluntary undertaking by def that leaves victim worse off than before

Question 49

Attempted Murder: Common Law

Answer 49

Mens rea for Attempted murder, we look at specific intent for murder. You have to ask did the person have the intent to actually commit murder?

ex: If man was only intending to scare his co-worker & on sudden impulse accelerated & veered at him with intention of scaring him. Co-worker tried to jump out of way but slipped & fell. Can man be charged with attempted murder? → no bc he did not have the intent to kill.

In order for conduct to constitute attempted murder, it has to be “dangerously proximate” to the commission of the offense.

ex: merely soliciting someone & offering them $5k to kill wife is not enough for attempted murder. This would be just solicitation