Criminal Law

Question 1

Specific Intent Crimes - define

Answer 1

Specific Intent crimes require subjective intent to cause a specific outcome. (Common Law)

Question 2

Specific Intent Crimes - list

Answer 2

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

Question 3

General Intent Crimes - define

Answer 3

General Intent crimes require D to intend to commit the act itself. (Common Law)

Question 4

General Intent Crimes - list

Answer 4

Manslaughter
Battery
Kidnapping
False Imprisonment
Rape

Question 5

Strict Liability - define

Answer 5

Strict Liability crimes only require actus reus, no mens rea required. No intent crimes.

Question 6

Strict Liability - categories

Answer 6

Morality (Bigamy)
Statutory Rape
Administrative
Regulatory
No adverbs in statute

Question 7

Malice Crimes

Define

Answer 7

Malice crimes require a reckless disregard of an obvious or high risk that the particular harmful result will occur. Voluntary intoxication is NOT a defense to malice crimes.

• Common Law Murder (Second-Degree Murder)
• Arson

Question 8

Mental States
Model Penal Code (MPC)

Name & Define

Answer 8

Purposely: conscious objective (desire) to produce a specific result (subjective)

Knowingly: aware that conduct will almost certainly cause specific result (subjective)

Recklessly: conscious disregard of substantial and unjustifiable risk (subjective)

Negligently: failure to be aware of substantial and unjustifiable risk (objective)

Question 9

Accomplice Liability

Answer 9

An accomplice is a person who (i) with the intent to assist the principal **AND the intent that the principal commit the crime **(ii) actually aids, counsels, or encourages the principal before or during the commission of the crime.

When the substantive offense has recklessness or negligence as its mens rea, most jurisdictions hold that the intent element is satisfied if the accomplice (i) intended to facilitate the commission of the crime, and (ii) acted with recklessness or negligence (whichever required).

Withdrawal: (1) Repudiation, (2) Neutralize, (3) Prevent Crime / Call the Police

Question 10

Conspiracy at Common Law

Answer 10

Agreement + 2 guilty minds [Intent to Enter + Intent to Achieve]

Question 11

Conspiracy
(Majority/MPC Jursidiction)

Answer 11

Agreement + 1 Guilty Mind [Intent to Enter + Intent to Achieve] + Overt Act in Furtherance

Question 12

Liability of Co-Conspirators

Answer 12

A conspirator may be liable for crimes committed by co-conspirators if the crimes (1) were committed in furtherance of the objectives of the conspiracy and (2) were foreseeable.

Question 13

Withdrawal from Conspiracy

Answer 13

Withdrawal generally not a defense.

However, MAY be defense for crimes committed in furtherance IF conspirator notifies all members of conspiracy and takes active steps to neutralize assistance

Factual Impossibility is NOT a defense

Question 14

Solicitation

Answer 14

**Asking another to commit a crime with the intent that the crime is committed.
**
MPC - renunciation as defense IF D prevents commission of crime

Under the doctrine of merger, the solicitor cannot be punished for both solicitation and other offenses of conspiracy and/or attempt.

Question 15

Attempt

Answer 15

**An overt act, done with the intent to commit a crime, that falls short of completing the crime. **

Overt act required beyond preparation:
MPC: Act = Substantial Step
Proximity Test: Crime “Dangerously Close” to completion

Defenses

• Abandonment in MPC jurisdiction
• > MPC - Voluntary & Complete Abandonment IS a valid defense
• > CL - Abandonment is NOT a defense
• Legal Impossibility (the action if completed would not constitute a crime)
• Note: Factual Impossibility NOT defense (physical condition = crime impossible)