Criminal law Flashcards
3 types and the defense
Actus Reus
- Voluntary muscular movement - regardless if someone told you to do it
- omission when there is a duty to act
- Defense: no having actus reus is a complete defense = unconsciouness means you are incapable of acting volitionally
cannot be voluntary intoxication
Failure to act; omissions
- generally, no duty to rescue, prevent harm etc.
- Exceptions:
- statutory
- parent-child
- contractual duty
- you voluntarily assume aid to someone
- you create the risk
Momentary Possession
- if a defendant handles an illegal substance for the limited purpose of disposing it, this is not possession
- however, if you wait to long (even a day) it turns into possession
actual possession: physical possession
constructive possession: keys
Willful Blindness
- high degree of suspicion
- deliberately not look
General Intent
- no requirement def intends to accomplish anything in addition to the actus reus
- no particular motive or desire
- description of offense only consists of the description of particular act without reference to intend to do something further = we ask whether the defendant intended to do the proscribed act
Specific intent
- intention to commit something further from and in addition to the actus reus
all property crimes are specific intent
Strict Liability
- no mens rea
- strict liability reserved for public health and safety and impose light punishments
- exception: statutory rape
Transferred intent doctrine
- Liability attributed to D who, intended to kill/injure one person, accidentally kills/injures another person
- intent transfers b/w victim
not between crimes
does not apply with attempt
But4
Causation
- the result would not occur BUT4 defendant’s conduct
But4
Causation
Acceleration theory
multi BUT4 causes
- defendant is a but for cause if he caused victim to die sooner
- even if already gonna die from someone elses’ conduct = both are but4
- A and B kill C = both may be but4 causes of C
- substantial factor test: were each a substantial factor?
Proximate cause
Causation
- Prox cause asks whether it is appropriate to hold the accused responsible
- a direct cause (chain isnt broken) is always a prox cause
Proximate cause
Causation
intervening act: dependant or independant
- independant act: not foreseeable and is remote = breaks chain of causation
- dependant act: foreseeable and thus D is liable
Proximate cause
Causation
Tools
- Contributory negligence: when a defendant is but4 and prox, the fact that the victim was negligent in some way, is not a defense
- free deliberate human decision: an independant cause = D not liable = think about women who froze and did not wake up parents
- If D got intended result, regardless of intervening act (victim’s actions), D is still prox
- Eggshell in a skull = take your victim as you find them = religious person refuses treatment
- 3rd party acts: in response to D’s conduct and not free/deliberate = D still prox
- V acts: D still prox if V brought own death sooner
- Medical care = only if medical care is grossly negligent
- Police pursuit = D liable
- Escape = D is still liable
ITK?
and what to consider
- defendant’s conscious object to kill
- preexisting motive, planning, manner of killing, and deadly weapon rule
- DWR: provides that when a person uses a deadly weapon on a vital pert of a victim’s body, you can infer intent to kill
Defintion
Predmeditation and Deliberation
what do you consider?
- Premed = considered beforehand
- Deliberation = careful thought and weighing of considerations for and against the killing
- Consider: manner of killing, planning, preexisting motive
These can happen quickly–not a matter of time but a matter of reflection.
GBI?
- did not intend to kill but did intend to cause significant harm, with a causal relationship that led to death
- NO CA
- 2nd degree murder
Depraved heart murder
- does not intend to kill or even harm
- elements:
- D engaged in behavior that was extremely dangerous to human life
- D was awatr of the risks of his actions
- D consciously disregarded the risk
- no social justification
2nd degree murder
FM
- FM is a crime that arises when a death occurs during the commission of a felony that is causally related to the felony
- can be unintentional or intentional
- one continous transaction with no place of safety
1st degree or 2nd degree
FM
- 1st degree = if listed in 189, 1st degree
- 2nd degree = unlisted felony IDHL and does not merge
- two ways to see whether IDHL = elements of the crime approach and elements of the case approach
- FM merges when it is assaultive in nature = look at the elements of the felony and find an assaultive aspect
Opponent of the felony
- Agency approach: D will not be liable because they are not an agent to the opponent of the felon
- Proximate approach: felon may be held responsiblle under felonymurder rule for a killing committed by a nonfelon if the felon sets in motion the acts
- Provocative act (CA): Provocative act is an act that goes beyond what is necessary to accomplish underlying felony AND natural and probable consequences are dangerous to human life
defendant can be charged with 1st or 2nd degree via the approaches depending on if crime is in 189
Provocative act elements
- defendant or accomplice
- with conscious disregard for human life
- intentionally commits an act that is likely to cause death
- opponent kills in reasonable response
- D guilty
First degree murder in CA
- willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing
- 1st degree FM
- Torture murder: defendant intended to torture but there was a causal relationship to death
- Lying in wait: conceal presence, substantial period of waiting but no fixed time, surprise attack
- Murder by poison: D deliberately gave V poison with intent to kill/harm
- Explosives or armor penetrating ammunition
2nd degree murder
- intent to kill w/o premeditation and deliberation
- Provocation sufficient to lower first degree to second degree: provocation would not cause an avg person to experience to experience deadly passion
- 2nd degree FM
- Depraved heart murder
voluntary heat of passion
Manslaughter
- intentional or a killing with conscious disregard for life in the heat of passion on adequate provocation
- 3 requirements: adequate provocation, a reasonable person would not have cooled off b/w the provocation and the killing
- D did not cool off during that period
2 approaches
Adequate provocation
CL approach and modern
- Common law pigeonhole approach: mutual combat, violent battery, illegal arrest, catching one’s spouse in the act of adultry, injury to a close family member, and sometimes assault. words never suffice
- Modern approach: case by case approach to evaluate. words alone can be adequate. provocations can be cumulative.
Involuntary manslaughter (unintentional and mens rea is crim negligence)
All types:
- Misdemeanor manslaughter
- Death that occurs in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner
- negligent manslaughter
- unlisted felony and not IDHL
- killing while is unconscious due to voluntary intoxication
criminal negligence: serious departure from reasonable conduct
Assault
- unlawful attempt, coupled with a present ability, to commit a violent injury on the person of another
general intent
attempt to commit battery
Battery
- In CA, any willful and unlawful use of force or violence upon the person of another
- brief touch can be a battery
- victim need not suffer injury
- can hit body, cloths, or item closely associated with the person
- simple battery is a general intent crime
Criminal threats
- Willfully threaten death or GBI w specific intent it be taken as a threat
- victim reasonably feels fear for safety
False imprisonment
- detaining someone without asportation
General intent
Simple kidnapping
- every person by means of force or fear detains someone and does asportation
- substantial asportation, more than trivial movement
- court considers how far the victim was moved and where
consent is a defense
Aggravated kidnapping
- Do not necessarily need asportation
- the essence of agg. kidnapping is the increase in the risk of harm to the victim caused by the forced movement
CL accomplice liability
- principal in 1st degree: person who actually commits the crime
- principal in 2nd degree: person who aided in the presence, actual or constructive
- Accessory before the fact: assissted but was not actually or constructively present at scene of the crime (still has intent/knowledge)
- Accessory after the fact: did not plan or perpetrate the crime but helped hide or avoid arrest/prosecution
everyone gets accomplice liability except after the fact = obstruction of justice
CA terms of accomplice liability
and accomplice liability
- perpetrator = 1st, 2nd, accessory before the fact
- accessory = accessory after the fact in CL
- actus reus of harboring
- knowledge mens rea
- mens rea of avoid arrest/conviction
accomplice liability
knowledge requirement mens rea
- knowledge that the principal committed a felony
- in determining whether aider has knowledge =
- possible presence at crime
- other means of knowledge
- his companionship and relationship with principal before and after the offense
elements of accomplice liability
- perpertrator’s actus reus
- Aider’s actus reus
- Aider’s knowledge mens rea
- Aider’s criminal intent mens rea
parent can be liable for the abuse of their child from accomplice liability = people v. rolon
you can be an accomplice to helping commit suicide
conviction cannot be based on the uncorroborated testimoney of an accomplice
Withdrawal out of AL
- notify everyone she knows is involved that she is no longer involved
- do everything reasonably within her power to prevent crime from being committed
- A person may be held liable as an aider and abettor of a crime if she was unaware of the crime from its beginning but knowingly assisted at a later stage
natural and probable consequences doctrine
- an accomplice is liable for crimes committed by the perp that are the natural and probable consequences of the target crime.
- something is a natural and probable consequence if it is foreseeable by a reasonable person
intent and accomplice liability b/w perp and aider
- when the offense charged is a specific intent crime, the accomplice must share the specific intent of the perp
- if the mens rea of the aider and abettor is more culpable than the actual perp’s, the aider may be guilty to a more serious crime.
Solicitation
- asking someone else to commit or join in a crime
- AR = inviting another to commit a crime
- MR = intent that crime be committed
- merges if solicitee agrees to the crime = conspiracy
to be a solicitation, the solicitation must reach the solicitee
thus if it does not reach, attempt at solicitation
Conspiracy
elements
type of intent
train
CRIA
- agreement b/w two or more people to commit a crime
- AR is the agreement to commit crime
- agreement can be verbal or can be inferred from the conduct of the parties, relationships, interests, and activities before and during the alleged conspiracy
- MR = intent to agree and intent to commit the target offense (so mens rea of target crime)
- some states, in CA, require at least one defendant to commit an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. it need not be criminal
specific intent
jumping on and off a moving train = you can join a conspiracy but you cannot be liable for things before you joing
Withdrawal from conspiracy
- affirmatively rejecting the conspiracy; and
- communicating that rejection to the other members of the conspiracy known to that person
- do everything in your power to prevent the crime
mere change of heart is not enough to withdraw
Bilateral theory of conspiracy
Unilateral theory of conspiracy
and undercover cops
- if a would-be conspirator “agrees” to commit a crime with an undercover cop, then there is NO CONSPIRACY on the other hand if three people agree to commit a crime and one is a cop, then there is a conspiracy
- MPC says someone CAN commit a conspiracy by agreeing to commit a crime with an undercover cop
Conspiracy to commit murder
- A conviction of conspiracy to commit murder requires a finding of intent to kill, and cannot be based on a theory of implied malice
Simple conspiracy
if 3 or 15 people agree to rob a bank, it is one conspiracy
the number of conspiracies = the number of agreements made
Chain conspiracy
Complex conspiracy
- drug distribution operation
- stretches from poppy fields to streets
- They have never met or communicated YET the manufacturer knows that eventually the drug will be sold by the dealer and the dealer knows that the drug came from somewhere. As long as each other player in the scheme knows others are involved, ALL the players are members of ONE conspiracy
as long as each player in the scheme knows others are involved, all members are part of one conspiracy.
buyer-seller relationship
uniformly acknowledges that evidence of a mere buyer-seller relationship without more, does not constitute a conspiracy ”
There is no singularity of purpose and thus no meeting of the minds. No common illegal purpose
hub and spoke
Complex conspiracy
- a single individual or small group of individuals— the hub —transacts some type of illegal business with separate individuals— the spokes —who may or may not know each other
- whether you connect the hub depends on mutual dependancy
- so if no connection = Xn conspiracies
- if connection = 1 conspiracy
When is a Supplier/Seller of Lawful Goods or Services in a Conspiracy With a Customer Whom the Provider Knows or Suspects is Putting the Goods or Services to Unlawful Ends?
in order to make a supplier of goods or services a participant in a criminal conspiracy, the prosecution must show that the supplier had a knowledge of the illegal use of the goods or services AND intent to further the illegal use of the goods or services
what suggests this?
- selling certain products (ingredients for fentanyl)
- distributer has stake in venture
- inflated charges; volume of business
Pinkerton liability
- A conspirator is liable for a crime committed by a co-conspirator if the crime was a natural and probable consequence of the conspiracy
- Elements
- reasonably foreseeable
- committed in furtherance of the conspiracy
elements
Attempt
- specific intent to commit the crime; and
- a direct but ineffectual act done towards its commission
most states reject the idea that one cannot be guilty of attempting to commit a crime that itself would be impossible to commit
Complete attempt
Attempt
- With a complete attempt , defendant took every step intended to commit the crime but for some reason the crime was not committed
- nothing remained to be done
Incomplete attempt
Attempt
- steps reamin to be taken before crime can occur
- Proximity approach
- MPC approach
- CA approach
Defendant cannot be convicted of both a completed crime and an attempt to commit the crime
Proximity approach
Attempt
- how close did the defendant get to completing the offense?
- closer the defendant got, the more likely the line crossed
- in assessing:
- number of acts remaining to be done
- distance to be covered before the crime could occur
- how close in time
- how clear is D’s intent
MPC approach
Attempt
- Asks how far did the D go toward completing the crime
- a substantial step toward the culmination of the crime
- Behaviors: (good for prox approach)
- lying in wait
- searching for victim
- convincing the victim to go to the place where the crime will happen
- reconnoisence
- possession of burglar’s tools or other instruments
CA approach
Attempt
- Slight acts rule
- Whenever the intent of a person to commit a crime is clearly shown, slight acts in furtherance of the intent will constitute an attempt
Attempt murder
Attempt
- To commit attempted murder, defendant MUST intend to kill
- Whether the defendant acted with a specific intent to kill must be judged separately as to each alleged victim
no implied malice
no concept of transferred intent
Kill zone thoery
Attempt
- The key to the kill zone is defendant intended to kill EVERYONE in that kill zone
(1) the circumstances of the defendant’s attack on a primary target, including the type and extent of force the defendant used, are such that the only reasonable inference is that the defendant intended to create a zone of fatal harm —that is, an area which the defendant intended to kill everyone present to ensure the primary target’s death —around the primary target;
AND
(2) the alleged attempted murder victim who was not the primary target was located within that zone
Defenses
3 categories
- failure of elements defenses
- affirmative defenses
- public policy defenses
Mistake of Fact Defense
- FED defense: the gov’t didnt prove one or more elements of the crime (mens rea typically)
- General intent: defendant’s mistake must have been honest, AND the mistake must have been reasonable under the circumstances
- Specific intent: defendant’s mistake must have been honest, BUT DOES NOT have to be reasonable
no mistake of fact for strict liability
statutory rape: a good faith, reasonable belief that the complaining witness in stat rape was at least 18, CA
Mayberry instruction
Mistake of fact in rape
- There is no rape if the victim did not consent but the defendant honestly and reasonably believe she did consent
- there must be evidence of substantial equivocal behavior by the women
- if there was, ask if def mistake was reasonable under the cirumstances
Mistake or ignorance of the law
- Generally, ignorance of or mistake about the law is not a defense. The law presumes citizens know the law
- misinterpreting the law is not a defense
- General intent = never
- Specific intent = sometimes with knowledge mens rea
- reliance on an attorney is never a defense
Elements
Self-Defense
- honest belief in imminent danger of death or GBI, rape, or robbery
- Honest subjective belief that self-defense is necessary
- the beliefs in 1 and 2 are reasonable (objective)
- no more force than necessary = nondeadly attack nondeadly force; deadly attack deadly force
- defender was not the original aggressor
- minority rule: retreat if completely safe and know about it - majority = no duty to retreat (CA)
you can be reasonable but wrong but still warrant self defense
- future harm is not justified because there is time to get help; however, it can be if you are kidnapped “preemptive strike”
- 4) can never use deadly force to protect property; different for homes depending on jxn
- 5) it is possible to become aggressor at later point and lose self defense; it is also possible to reclaim the right to self defense even if you are the first aggressor
- if you meet the elements, you meet the elements even if you miss and kill someone innocent
- physical differences matter.
Castle Doctrine and defense of property
- in a jxn that requires retreat, a defendant has never been required to retreat within their own home
- A person is justified in using reasonable non-deadly force to protect property
3 categories
Intimate partner violence
- tradional self defense scenario = allowed
- battered person kills batterer in sleep = not allowed
- cases in which the battered person hires hitman = not allowed
Defense of others
A person may come to the assistance of another who is being attacked or threatened with imminent attack
If the victim is being attacked or threatened with deadly force, the rescuer may use deadly force to protect the victim
justification defense
an individual who kills someone under the actual, albeit unreasonable, belief that he must do so to protect another person from imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm is guilty of involuntary manslaughter, not murder
Perfect and imperfect self defense
- Perfect Self-Defense (complete defense): meet all elements including where it was honest belief AND reasonable → perfect self-defense applicable / not criminally liable
- Imperfect Self-Defense: the belief subjectively exists but it is objectively unreasonable.
imperfect self defense not available when belief is COMPLETELY delusion (CA)
Necessity defense
- the defendant acted in an emergency to prevent imminent harm to defendant or others
- no adequate legal alternative
- the harm caused by violating the law was less than the harm to be prevented
- def subjectively believed he was choosing the lesser evil
- defendant’s belief reasonable under the circumstances
- defendant did not contribute substantially to the emergency
justification
Lovercamp requirements: report immediately to authorities in CA and reach a place of safety
remember for lovercamp: no legal alternative. literally.
Civil disobedience = no necessity defense
Duress
- immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury
- well grounded fear that the threat will be carried out
- no reasonable opportunity to escape the threatened harm
- sometimes: the def must submit to the proper authorities after attaining a position of safety
Excuse
duress is not a defense to murder
might work for felony murder because it can excuse the felony
has to be human
Voluntary intoxication
- never for general intent crimes
- can be for specific intent crimes
- can be used for accomplice liability
- can eliminate premeditation and deliberation but not intent to kill
FED defense
for example it might negate the specific intent for theft
involuntary intoxication
- complete defense in all jxn
- four types:
- coerced intoxication
- innocent or mistaken intoxication
- unanticipated rxn to a drug taken on medical advice
- pathological intoxication = def had an excessive rxn
Mental illness
- MI at the time of act = insanity defense
- MI at time of act = MI affects the mens rea
- MI at trial = competence to stand trial
- MI at time of execution
Mental illness and mens rea
Mental illness can deprive a person of the capacity to have the mens rea for the charged offense = Used for this purpose, mental illness is FED
Can be a defense when a defendant is charged with a specific intent offense
Mental illness CANNOT eliminate general intent UNLESS the offense requires “knowledge”
remember General crim intent means you intend to the act so if you hit someone in the head with a wrench , you know what you are doing
ability to stand trial
- ability to understand the nature of the trial
- ability to assist counsel
four approaches
Insanity defense
- M’naughten (CA) = at the time of committing the act, mental illness, as to not know the nature of the act he was doing, and if he did know, did not know it was wrong (very narrow defense) = you literally do not know what you are doing = squeezing orange but its your wife’s neck
- M’naughten + irresistable impulse = impact on ability to control behavior, they could not control b/c of mental illness
- MPC = incoporates 2 but they might have some control
- product rule = An accused is not criminally responsible if his unlawful act was the product of mental disease or defect
affirmative defense
if someone walks into a store with a ski mask, they know what they are doing is wrong
Infancy
CL:
2. Children under the age of 7 conclusively presumed incapable of forming criminal intent
3. Children between ages of 7 and 14 there was rebuttable presumption that the minor was incapable of forming mens rea
Entrapment
- Objective approach (CA and minority): focus is less on def’s predisposition to commit the crime and more on police conduct =did the police create a strong liklihood that the offense would be committed by an innocent person, as opposed to someone ready and willing to break the law?
- Subjective (majority): was the crime induced by officers of the govt? was the def predisposed to commit the offense? evidence of def’s crim history is relevant
Factors that point to entrapment
- Police conduct must be directed at a specific person or persons to constitute entrapment
- Police must pressure the suspect by overbearing conduct (repeated urging of someone to do something)
- Badgering and creating opportunity that would make a law-abiding person to commit a crime. (make something very appealing and say its legal to do)
sting (legal): Present to general community a tempting opportunity to do crime
possession vs. custody
- Custody = control over property
- possession = right to exert control over property
when it is difficult
think about who has possession or who had possession before the physical control over something changed
Theft
- trespassory caption and asportation of personal property of another with intent to steal
- asportation = even the slightest movement = as soon as you move it, theft is complete
- go through tresspassory, caption, asportation
leasehold is considered to be personal property
Theft is an offense against POSSESSION, so if you are in possession of something you cannot steal it
remember relativity of title
Employees Custody or Possession:
If have custody: can be charged w/ theft
If have possession: cannot be charged w/ theft, not possible = instead it becomes embezzlement (created b/c people w/ possession (like managers) kept taking things but couldn’t be charged for theft b/c of possession element)
high level = possession
low level = custody
you do not charge theft for possession you charge embezzlement
larceny by trick
- occurs when a thief obtains possession of property through lies or deception
- can be for real property or personal property
- the essence of larceny by trick is that due to the thief’s deception, the victim intends to hand over possession of property
- title/ownership remains with victim, so victim intends for trickster to have temporary possession
a type of theft
Claim of right defense
A bona fide belief, even though mistakenly held, that one has a right or claim to property negates felonious intent
However: One CANNOT use claim of right defense to collect on a debt
FED defense
Robbery
- force/fear does not need to be intended
- can consider physical characteristics and vulnerability of victim
- Force: no minimum required. sufficient even if light touching or if victim had no fear
False pretenses
- False representation of material present or past fact which causes the victim to pass title of the victim’s property to the defendant
- difference with larceny by trick = pass title v. possession
when you give money = you intend to pass title to the money
Embezzlment
- conversion of the property of another by one in lawful possession
Receipt of stolen property
Receipt of stolen property knowing that it is stolen
specific intent = know it is stolen
CL
Burglary
- breaking and entering into the dwelling house of another at night with the intent to commit a felony therein
- breaking: Entry through a partially or completely open door or window was not a breaking, closed but unlocked not a breaking = must be a breaking
- entering: some portion must enter
- had to be a dwelling house
- must be at night
analyze under common law first, then modern law
Modern
Burglary
- today in CA, breaking not needed just enter
- some portion of the def’s body must enter
- any structure
- anytime
basically entry with intent to commit crime
Burglary
instrument to enter building
- if the instrument that you use is simply to gain entry and not going to be used to commit the felony therein = not burglary = would be attempt burglary
- if the instrument is used to commit the felony as well = burglary
- no instrument rule in modern only CL
def intends to murder, aims from across the street and shoots. murder and Burglary!
Arson
malicious burning of the dwelling house of another
arson requires a burning
general intent
