Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Bar Exam > Criminal Law > Flashcards

Criminal Law Flashcards

1
Q

Elements of Crime generally

A

(1) actus reus, (2) mens rea, (3) causation (4) concurrence

Actus reus: Voluntary act

Mens Rea: Guilty mind
- (general intent: (1) intend commit act)
- (specific intent: (1) intend commit act, (2) intend result

Causation: (1) actual cause, and (2) proximate cause

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

culpable mental states

A

(a) purposely, (b) knowingly, (c) recklessly, (d) negligently

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

Purposely (intent)

A

Objective to act or cause result

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

Knowingly

A

(a) Aware or practically certain act would cause result even if no specific intent, or (b) deliberate ignorance (knew fact true with practical certainty but didn’t learn truth)

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

Recklessly

A

Disregard substantial risk and gross deviation from what reasonable person would do

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Negligently

A

Should’ve been aware of substantial risk

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Under MPC default mens rea

A

Recklessly

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Strict-liability offense

A

No Mens Rea required

(Note: usually low level regulatory offenses, but exception: Statutory rape strict liability)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Transferred intent

A

If D intends to harm victim a, but instead accidentally harms victim b, D’s intent to harm victim a transfers to intent to harm victim b

NOTE: only applies to different victims, NOT different crimes

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Concurrence

A

Mens rea and Actus rea must exist at same time

Example: D enters building to sleep, but later decides to steal, NOT burglary because act and intent not at same time

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Actual causation

A

but-for D’s act, result wouldn’t have occurred

Note: “substantial factor test”: If multiple actions combine to cause result, each one individually would have caused result and unsure which actually caused result, each action is considered but-for cause

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Proximate causation

A

Someone committing the act would (1) foreseeably, and (2) reasonably anticipate, causing the result

Note: Ordinary negligence causing result typically considered proximate cause

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Duty to act

A

generally NO duty to act

Exceptions: (a) special relationship exists, (b) special duty exists (by statute, contract, etc.)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Inchoate crimes

A

Crimes made in preparation for later substantive offense

(a) attempt, (b) conspiracy, (c) solicitation

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

Attempt

A

(1) specific intent to commit crime
(2) (majority: “substantial step” to commit crime (minority: “act in sufficiently close proximity to target offense”)
(minority: “portable-distance” D reached point when typical person no longer change mind)
(3) didn’t complete crime

Note:
- since specific intent, can’t be liable for reckless/negligent conduct, only for purposely/knowingly acts
- FACTUAL impossibility of actually committing crime NOT a defense (pickpocketing an empty pocket still attempted burglary)
- LEGAL impossibility IS a defense = attempt to commit a crime that is no longer a crime (attempt to buy weed but weed is now legal)
- VOLUNTARY abandonment is a defense
- BUT (a) 3rd party intervention (b) difficulty in completing, (c) fear of detection, (d) waiting for better opportunity, ALL not defenses

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Lesser included offenses

A

Lesser included offenses “merge” with the main completed offenses, therefore can’t be convicted of both

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

Conspiracy

A

(1) Agreement (2) between 2 or more people, (3) with intent (4) to commit crime (5) (MPC: an overt act)

Common law:
- Both parties need to separately intend to commit crime (ex: person conspiring with undercover officer not conspiracy)
- no overt act required

MPC:
- only one party need to intend to commit crime
- overt act required

GENERALLY:
- all co-conspirators liable for (1) crimes object of conspiracy, and (2) acts reasonably foreseeable from conspiracy
- intent can be implied through circumstances
- “whartons rule”: Can’t be conspiracy for crime that requires 2 parties (if so, need 3 or more parties)
- DOES NOT merge with completed offense, so can be convicted of main crime and conspiracy

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Conspiracy defenses

A

(a) withdrawal: (partial defense) liability attaches upon creation of conspiracy agreement, BUT can withdraw and not liable for subsequent crimes

(b) MPC: renunciation (complete defense), (1) withdraw and (2) actively thwart conspiracy

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Solicitation

A

(1) invite to commit crime, (2) intent crime be committed

Note:
- D guilty even if other doesn’t commit the crime
- (most jx): no renunciation defense
- (MPC): Renunciation Defense if D persuades other party to not commit offense

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Principal

A

directly commits crime

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Accomplice

A

Provides (1) assistance or encourages principal, (2) specific intent to aid principal commit crime
- Specific intent can be inferred if (a) unusually large profit from sale, or (b) D provides highly specialized goods/services

NOTE:
- can’t be accomplice to crime that requires 2 people
- Liability for additional non-main crimes: (1) natural and probable consequence of primary crime, (2) committed in furtherance of primary crime
- If accomplice assists before crime, then liable for main crime
- “Accessory after fact”: If accomplice assists only after crime, then liable only for subsequent crimes that are reasonably foreseeable
- Withdrawal defense to accomplice liability ONLY IF nullify previous assistance

22
Q

Larceny

A

(1) taking , (2) property of another, (3) intent to permanently deprive

  • Party who believes, even unreasonably, they own property is NOT liable
  • “continuing-trespass” doctrine: D guilty even if initially takes without intent to permanently deprive, but later forms intent
  • Larceny by trick: gain possession by deceit/trick, rather than merely taking it
23
Q

Embezzlement

A

(1) taking (2) of property of another, (3) intent to permanently deprive, (4) by person in lawful possession of property

24
Q

Forgery

A

(1) create/alter document, (2) with LEGAL significance, (3) intent to defraud

25
Q

False Pretenses

A

(1) obtaining title to another’s property (2) through knowing misrepresentation of material fact (3) with intent to defraud

26
Q

Receipt of stolen property

A

(1) knowingly, (2) receive stolen property, (3) intent to permanently deprive true owner

27
Q

Robbery

A

(1) larceny, (2) from person/presence of another, (3) with force or intimidation

Note:
- good-faith claim of ownership of property NOT defense
- intimidate: objective reasonable standard

28
Q

Burglary

A

(1) unlawful entering, (2) building (3) intent to commit crime

  • intent only determined at time of entry
29
Q

Criminal trespass

A

(1) unlawful entering, (2) building

  • NO INTENT TO COMMIT CRIME
30
Q

Battery

A

(1) harmful or offensive, (2) contact, (3) with another

NOTE:
- general intent crime: so guilty by reckless conduct even with no specific intent to harm/touch

31
Q

Assault

A

(1) (a) attempted battery, or (b) (i) reasonably apprehension of (ii) imminent battery, (2) specific intent to commit battery or cause victim apprehension of battery

NOTE:
- Apprehension not reasonable if based on sensitivities of victim
- Not defense that D can’t actually carry out battery, only that P reasonably believes D can do so
- Words alone NOT assault, but words and incidental action CAN BE

32
Q

Sexual assault

A

(1) non-consensual, (2) sexual contact with another

33
Q

Arson

A

(1) malicious (2) burning (3) of dwelling/building of another

  • malicious = intent or reckless
34
Q

Kidnapping

A

(1) intentional, (2) non-consensual, (3) movement or confinement, (4) of another, and (5) “aggravating factor” (physical injury, ransom, etc)

Common law:
- Any movement suffices

MPC:
- Movement of victim must be more than incidental to commission of another crime

35
Q

Murder

A

Common law murder: (1) unlawful, (2) killing of another person, (3) with malice aforethought (a) intent to kill, (b) intent to cause serious bodily injury, (c) reckless indifference to human life)

1st degree murder: (1) unlawful, (2) killing of another person, (3) with malice aforethought, and (4) premeditation

2nd degree murder: (1) unlawful, (2) killing of another person, (3) with malice aforethought
- no premeditation required
- NOTE: same definition at common law murder

MPC:
- murder: (1) criminal homicide, (2) committed (a) purposefully, (b) knowingly, or (c) recklessly and under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to human life

36
Q

Felony-murder

A

Defendant liable for death that occurs during commission of a felony, even if death was unintended/no intent to kill

NOTE:
- some jurisdictions: only “inherently dangerous felonies”
- “merger doctrine”: underlying felony must not include element of harm to victim itself (thus not felony murder for aggravated assault because requires harm to victim, but arson where someone dies is felony murder since no element of harm to victim)
- under MPC, rule doesn’t require felony, just rebuttable presumption D committed murder when a death occurs while acting with “recklessness manifesting extreme indifference to human life”

37
Q

Voluntary manslaughter (provocation)

A

(1) intentional ,(2) killing, (3) committed upon adequate provocation, (4) in heat of passion

NOTE:
- mere words are not adequate provocation
- MPC: (1) criminal homicide, (2) (a) committed recklessly and without circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life or (b) under extreme emotional disturbance

38
Q

Involuntary manslaughter (aware)

A

(1) killing, (2) defendant knows, (3) unreasonable high risk of death, (4) consciously disregards it

(1) killing (2) caused unintentionally, (3) through conduct manifesting grossly unreasonable disregard, (4) of foreseeable possibility of death

39
Q

Negligent homicide (unaware)

A

(1) killing, (2) that occurs while D should be, but isn’t aware, (3) of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that death will occur

MPC: (1) fails to perceive substantial and unjustifiable risk that someone will die, (2) failure is gross deviation from standard of care

40
Q

Defenses to crimes

A

(a) mistake of fact, (b) intoxication (c) mental disability (d) insanity (e) self-defense (f) defense of another, (g) duress, (h) entrapment

mistake of fact: reasonable mistake of fact didn’t have mens rea

Voluntary Intoxication: (some jx: negates mens rea) (some jx: only negate specific intent) (some jx: voluntary intoxication not a defense)

INvoluntary intoxication: defense in all jx

Mental disability: negates mens rea

Insanity: (M’Naghten: (a) D doesn’t know nature of criminal act) ((b) Irresistaible-Impulse: Even if knows right from wrong, can’t resist commiting crime)

Necessity: (1) imminent, (2) substantial harm, (3) no reasonable alternative (4) harm less serious than harm avoided

41
Q

Self-Defense

A

Defend against (1) imminent, (2) unlawful use of force (3) subjectively, (4) reasonably believe defense necessary, (5) proportionate

NOTES:
- If non-deadly threat, can only use non-deadly
- If (1) reasonably believe, (2) imminent death, serious bodily injury, or dangerous crime, CAN use deadly force
- NO duty to retreat, BUT: (minority: retreat if possible before deadly force)
- BUT: “castle doctrine” no duty to retreat in own home
- initial aggressor CAN’T use self-defense, EXCEPT: (a) non-deadly force met with deadly force can use deadly force in response (b) initial aggressor withdraws and regains right to use self-defense

42
Q

Defense of others

A

(majority): (1) reasonable (2) belief that force needed to defend other
- CAN BE MISTAKEN

(minority): “altar ego rule” Self-D only if other person could legally use self-defense
- MUST BE CORRECT

43
Q

Defend property or home

A

Degree of force must be reasonable and proportionate

44
Q

Necessity

A

(1) committed crime to prevent imminent harm, (2) no reasonable alternative, (3) harm caused less than harm avoided (4) didn’t bring about situation

45
Q

Duress

A

(1) imminent, (2) threat of death/harm to himself or another, (3) reasonably believe harm will occur if not commit crime, (4) no alternative, (5) didn’t place themself in situation

Can’t use duress defense for intentional homicides

46
Q

Entrapment

A

(1) law enforcement, (2) induces, (3) D commits crime they otherwise wouldn’t have committed

  • merely providing opportunity isn’t entrapment
  • entrapment defense not available if D “already pre-disposed” to commit the crime
47
Q

Consent

A

Only defense if: (a) lack of consent element of crime, or (b) victim’s consent negates element of offense

48
Q

Automatism

A

D acted involuntarily

  • sleepwalking, hypnosis, brain injuries
49
Q

Insanity defenses

A

M’Naghten Rule: (1) due to mental illness, (2) didn’t know nature or quality of criminal act or didn’t know that the act was wrong

Irresistable-impulse test: (1) due to mental illness, (2) D couldn’t restrain themself from doing act

MPC test: (1) due to mental illness, (2) D lacks substantial capacity to appreciate wrongfulness of their conduct and conform conduct to law

Diminished capacity: (1) due to mental illness, (2) couldn’t form necessary intent
- (only partial defense, just reduces charges)

50
Q

Mistake

A

Only mistake of fact, not mistake/ignorance of law

(majority: mistake must be reasonable)
(MPC: mistake can be unreasonable)

51
Q

Intoxication

A

Voluntary intoxication: not a defense, but may negate specific intent

Involuntary intoxication: usually a defense

Bar Exam (17 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions