Criminal Law Flashcards by Hannah Gertje

Statutory Interpretation

Plain meaning
Contextual meaning
Legislative intent (as determined by the structure of the statutes around it)
Grading/merger problem/surplussage
Absurdity
Ejusdem generis
Rule of lenity

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Statute: Criminal Trespass

5 Elements
(i) knowingly
(ii) enters or remains unlawfully
(iii) in a building or upon real property
(iii)(a) which is fenced or otherwise enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders; or
(iii)(b) where the building is used as a public housing project in violation of conspicuously posted rules or regulations governing entry or use thereof

Mens Rea = knowingly for all elements

Criminal Trespass in the 3rd degree

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Statute: Theft

Elements
(i) takes possession or control
(ii) of the property of another or property in possession of another
(iii) with the intent to permanently deprive the other thereof

Mens Rea = silent
MPC = Recklessly for (i) and (ii)
Staples = Knowingly for (i) and (ii)

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Statute: Operating a motor vehicle without consent

Elements
(i) takes possession or control of
(ii) any self-propelled vehicle
(iii) the property of another
(iv) without the consent of the owner of such
(v) without the intent to permanently deprive the owner thereof

Mens rea = silent
MPC = Recklessly for (i)-(iv)
Staples = Knowingly for (i)-(iv)

Aggravated misdemeanor

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Statute: Robbery

Elements:
(i) steals
(ii) the property of another
(iii) by force or threat of force

Mens rea = silent
MPC = Recklessly for all
Staples = Knowingly for all

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Statute: Traditional Burglary

Elements:
(i) breaks and enters
(ii) dwelling
(iii) at night
(Iv) with the intent to commit a felony therein

Mens rea = silent
MPC = Recklessly for all
Staples = Knowingly for all

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Statute: Sparks Burglary

Elements:
(i) enters
(ii) any house, room, store, or other building
(iii) with intent to commit larceny or any felony

Mens rea = silent
MPC = recklessly for (i) and (ii)
Staples = knowingly for (i)

(California statute)

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Statute: Aiding & Abetting a Suicide

Elements:
(i) deliberately
(ii) aids or advises or encourages another
(iii) to commit suicide

Mens rea = deliberately
MPC = Purposely for all

Felony
In re. Joseph G.

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Statute: Diversion of Construction Funds

Elements:
(i) receives money for the purpose of obtaining or paying for services, labor, materials or equipment
(ii) willfully fails to apply such money for such purpose by either
(iii)(a) failing to complete the improvement or
(iii)(b) failing to pay for service, labor, materials or equipment
(iv) wrongfully diverts the funds to a use other than that for which the funds were received

Mens rea = silent for (i)
MPC = recklessly for (i)
Staples = knowingly for (i)

Public offense
People v. Stark

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Statute: Keeping intoxicating liquors in a motor vehicle

(i) driver of a motor vehicle
(ii) owner not present
(iii) keep or allow to be kept in a motor vehicle
(iv) when such vehicle is upon the public highway
(v) any bottle or receptacle containing booze
(vi) which has been opened

Mens rea = silent
MPC = recklessly for all
Staples = knowingly for (iii)(v)(vi)
Court says = strict liability because traffic offense (regulatory)

Misdemeanor
State v. Loge

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Statute: Theft (Moon)

Elements:
(i) obtains or exercises unauthorized control over
(ii) the property of another
(iii) with the intent to permanently deprive him thereof

As used in this section, “exercises unauthorized control” includes but is not limited to trespassory taking, larceny by conversion, larceny by bailee and embezzlement.

Mens rea = silent
MPC = recklessly for (i) and (ii)
Staples = knowingly for (i) and (ii)

State v. Moon

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Statute: Possession with Intent to Distribute

(i) knowingly or intentionally
(ii) possess
(iii) a controlled substance
(iv) with intent to distribute

Mens rea = knowingly or intentionally for all
United States v. Hunte

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Queen v. Dudley & Stephens

☠️🍽️

In order to save your own life you may not lawfully take away the life of another, when that other is neither attempting nor threatening yours, nor is guilty of any illegal act whatever towards you or anyone else

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Martin v. State

🥴🛣️

Conduct must be voluntary to be criminal

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

In re. Joseph G.

🚗⛰️

If (i) a mutual suicide pact is genuine, (ii) the instrumentality of death is the same for both parties to the pact, and (iii) the attempted death is simultaneous, the survivor of the act is guilty of aiding and abetting a suicide rather than murder

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

People v. Kellogg

🥴🏘️

It is not permissible under the 8th Amendment for a state to impose criminal punishment because of a person’s condition of being a homeless alcoholic, but it IS permissible to impose criminal punishment when the addict engages in conduct which spills into public areas

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

People v. Cowden

💡

The value of property stolen determined what level of offense Cowden could be charged with

“Cow lamp”

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

State v. Shedrick

💵🤷

In a prosecution for first-degree theft, the state must prove the defendant’s culpable mental state with respect to the value of property stolen

“Shedrick shoulda known”

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Commonwealth v. Alvarez

❄🧑‍🏫

No mens rea was needed for the attendant circumstance element (strict liability applied) because the legislature expressly stated that lack of knowledge of the element was not an excuse.

“Al-var-is he from the school?”

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

People v. Ryan

🍄⚖️

(1) Defendant has to know the pure weight of the drug he possessed.
(2) Knowledge of the pure weight of the drug possessed can be inferred from evidence like negotiations concerning weight, potency, price, or number of doses.
(3) Post-Ryan statute: knowledge of aggregate weight not required, but knowledge requirement for pure weight stands

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Whitaker v. People

🚌💊🤷

Although Colorado has adopted the M.P.C., there is a clear contrary purpose indicated by the structure of the statute. Knowledge does not apply to the quantity of the controlled substance, rather strict liability applies

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

State v. Ducker

🚗👶👶

Application of the Staples rule: the offense of aggravated child abuse contains the elements of (1) awareness of conduct, (2) awareness of circumstances; and (3) strict liability for result of conduct. The conduct and circumstances separate guilty from innocent conduct.

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Staples v. United States

🔫🪪

A defendant must know the facts that make his conduct illegal. If an element divides innocent conduct from guilty conduct, then there must be a mens rea to that element, and it can be no lower than knowingly

Test: if you remove an element from the definition of the crime, is the conduct still illegal? (example: Any person who sells drugs within 500 feet of a school - if the proximity to the school is removed, the conduct of selling drugs is still illegal, so knowingly doesn’t apply to that element)

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc.

👶🎥

Application of the Staples rule: knowingly applies to “minor” and to “sexually explicit activity”

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Elonis v. United States

👨‍💻🎤

Application of the Staples rule: knowingly applies to the threatening nature of Elonis’ Facebook posts. Suggests that recklessly may suffice for elements which separate innocent from guilty conduct

“Tone Dougie”

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Ostrosky v. State

🎣🪪

Mistake of Law is almost never a valid defense, but if the mistake was made as a result of reasonable reliance on a court order, then it is a defense

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Rehaif v. United States

🔫👽

Application of the Staples rule: student must know his citizenship status because it is an element of the crime.

Mistake of Law defense: because citizenship status is governed by a different set of statutes, mistake of law governing citizenship status is a defense for another offense, of which it is an element

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

State v. Varszegi

🖥️🖨️💰

Mistake of Law defense: because the defendant did not know that his lease provision allowing him to seize and sell his tenant’s property was not valid under the statutes governing leases, he believed he was entitled to her property and therefore did not act with the felonious intent needed to prove the crime.

“How Varsze-gonna go to punish his tenant?”

United States v. Balint

💊🧾

Strict Liability applies to regulatory offenses. Multi-factor test for identifying regulatory offenses:
(a) purpose = prevent a possible future harm (malum prohibitum) rather than punish conduct which is dangerous in itself (malum in se)
(b) conduct/item in question puts a person on notice that it is likely highly regulated
(c) legal classification of something (immigration status, type of drug, etc.)
(d) carries less harsh penalties
(e) statute is silent regarding mens rea
(f) strict liability does not “sweep in a broad range” of apparently innocent conduct

“IRS form for opium sales”

United States v. Rizo-Rizo

👽🤷

Immigration law is regulatory, so strict liability applies. The defendant did not need to know his immigration status to be guilty of entering the U.S. without inspection

State v. Loge

🚗🍺

Traffic law is regulatory, so strict liability applies. In this case, the structure of the open container statute further suggests strict liability applies.

United States v. Hale

🧑‍🦯

Two part rule for willful blindness: a defendant must
(1) subjectively believe that there is a high probability that a fact exists
(2) take deliberate actions to avoid learning that fact

“Ah hale naw the goods weren’t stolen”

United States v. Moran

📼👮‍♂️

Moran earnestly believed that he was acting lawfully under copyright law, and his conduct reflects this belief. He could not have willfully violated this complex body of law if he believed that he was acting lawfully

“Moran the Moron”

Cheek v. United States

🙏

(1) Cheek’s belief that his wages did not count as taxable income was earnest. He did not believe he was breaking the law when he stopped paying taxes and filing returns (i.e. willfully/general intent not met)
(2) An earnest belief that a law is unconstitutional (like Cheek’s belief that the tax code was unconstitutional) is not reasonable. As a mistake of law, it is not a valid defense

State v. Schminkey

🥴🛻

Theft is a specific intent crime (intent to permanently deprive). The mere fact that Schminkey took the pickup without the owner’s consent does not allow the inference that he intended to permanently deprive the owner of the vehicle. Additional facts are needed to make that inference.

“Schminkey drinkey drivey”

People v. Stark

👷‍♂️💸

If the definition of a crime consists only of the description of conduct, without reference to do a further act, it is a general intent crime.

Here, the only act the statute describes is the diversion of funds, and there is no reference to a specific intent to permanently deprive the rightful owner of the funds. It is immaterial whether Stark intended to pay back the funds or not, just that he diverted them from their designated purpose.

“Construction Ponzi scheme”

United States v. Oglivie

👰👰‍♀️

(1) False official statement = specific intent crime. If Oglivie honestly believed something was true (i.e. that he was divorced) then he had no intent to deceive another because he didn’t think he was lying. Found not guilty because his belief was earnest.
(2) Bigamy = general intent crime. A mistake of fact (i.e. whether he was divorced) is only an excuse if the belief is both honest and reasonable. Found guilty because his belief was not reasonable.

People v. V.V.

🎇🔥🧑‍🚒

Malice may be presumed or implied from the intentional doing of the act without justification or excuse or mitigating circumstances

“V.V. bad fireworks”

McBoyle v. United States

✈️≠🚗

An airplane is not a “vehicle” within this statute, because the specific examples of the term “motor vehicle” evoke only images of vehicles moving on land

“McBoeing”

People v. Jacques

🤺

A fenced-in area is not a “structure” within the entering without breaking statute. Steps:
(1) Plain meaning
(2) ejusdem generis (unless a contrary purpose appears)

“Jaques says en garde when he fences”

Yates v. United States

🎣➡️🌊

A fish is not a “tangible object” within the Sarbanes-Oxley Act destruction of evidence statute. Ejusdem generis can be supported by plain meaning and contextual usage of the term in other related statutes.

“Enron fish”

United States v. Santos

💰🧼🧺

“Proceeds” in money laundering statute means “profits,” not “receipts,” because that interpretation is more favorable to defendants

“Santos was a saint so he gets the rule of lenity”

State v. Evans

🪪✍️💰

Corporations are persons protected by the identity theft statute in Washington.

Plain meaning and legislative intent (discerned from legislative history) clearly establish this. Thus it is not necessary to apply the rule of lenity by interpreting the statute in Evans’ favor

People v. Luke

🏢🤷🏢

A person knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a building when he is aware that he is not licensed or privileged to do so. Luke accidentally entered the public housing building, believing that he was licensed to enter to visit his aunt. Thus he was not guilty of criminal trespass.

“Luke was Lost”

State v. Keeton

💵🥊

Intent may be inferred from the circumstances of the transaction and actions of the defendant. Testimony at trial and Keeton’s actions were sufficient to support the inference that Keeton had intent to make contact with or threaten the clerk in a manner meeting the definition of assault

“Heisman”

Carter v. United States

🥊≠💰

Under Rule 81(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure “the elements of the lesser offense are a subset of the elements of the charged offense.” Here, a bank robber is unsuccessful in arguing for larceny as a lesser included charge of robbery because larceny includes three elements which are not included in robbery.

“Cart full of money from the bank”

People v. Sparks

➡️🚪💭

A bedroom within a single-family home is a “room” within the meaning of the CA burglary statute. Intent can be formed after the defendant’s entry into the house. If it is formed prior to the defendant’s entry into the room, they are guilty of burglary.

State v. Moon

🏛️💸

Embezzlement = theft of funds entrusted to you by your employer. Intent to permanently deprive can be inferred if the defendant disposes of the stolen funds in a way that makes it unlikely that the owner would ever recover them.

People v. Perry

🏨🛌🏃‍➡️

The use of a hotel room is property within the meaning of the statute and the taking of such property by deception can result in the owner being permanently deprived of its benefit.

United States v. Jackson

📺👶🙊

A threat to disclose information which will damage someone’s reputation is extortionate if
(1) The person making the demand has no rightful legal claim to the money (especially not that much money); and
(2) The demand for payment has no nexus with the threat to disclose (the threat would not resolve the claim if it came to fruition, rather, making good on the threat makes payment less likely)

Cosby love child

United States v. Avenatti

✓💸

The Jackson rule applied:
(1) Lawyer had no rightful legal claim to money from Nike (especially not that much money)
(2) Lawyer’s threat had no nexus to the demanded payment (if he disclosed the information, he would lose his leverage)

“Just don’t do it, Harvey Spector”

Kier v. State

🚬🚗

To prove constructive possession, the state must show some connection between the person and the drug other than spatial proximity. The state must show that the defendant knowingly had
(1) power
(2) intention
at a given time to exercise control over the drug

When the state’s constructive possession case is based wholly on circumstantial evidence, the law requires that the proved facts shall exclude every other reasonable hypothesis save that of the guilt of the accused.

The circumstantial evidence presented at trial was entirely consistent with Kier’s theory of innocence. The state failed to prove Kier’s possession beyond reasonable doubt.

United States v. Hunte

👫🚬

To prove constructive possession, the state must show that the defendant knowingly had
(1) power
(2) intention
at a given time to exercise control over the drug (either directly or through others)

There was a clear nexus between Hunte and the drugs, and regardless of the fact that she was not the leader of the group, she acted in concert with the leader. All members of the group had joint possession of the drugs.

“on the Hunte for marijuana”

State v. Pigford

🥬🚛

Possession of marijuana can be inferred from the fact that the defendant had
(1) dominion AND
(2) control
over his trailer and its contents (which included the marijuana).

Possession alone does not prove knowledge, but knowledge can be inferred from the circumstances (Pigford was off course, he was nervous, the marijuana was easily found once inside the trailer, value of marijuana mad alternative theory that someone else left it there implausible)

“This little piggy drove a truck full of marijuana”

Garcia v. State

⚾️🤷

Guilty knowledge includes knowledge of both
(1) the presence of and
(2) the illicit nature of
the substance possessed.

The jury found that Garcia knew of the presence of the item, but did not find on whether he knew of the illicit nature of the substance possessed. Garcia should not have been convicted without the jury finding him guilty of the latter.

“Meth softball”

MPC Rules for Mens Rea in Statutory Interpretation

(1) If the statute is silent, apply Recklessly to all material elements
(2) If the statute prescribes a mens rea term, it applies to all material elements
(3) A higher level of mens rea satisfies a lower level

Defenses

(1) Self-defense (Queen v. Dudley) = killing another innocent person to preserve your own life is not a valid defense for murder

(2) Mistake of law (Ostrosky v. State) = valid defense if mistake was made in reasonable reliance on valid authority

(3) Mistake of Law (Rehaif v. United States; State v. Varszegi) = valid defense if the violation of ANOTHER law is an element of the crime you are charged with, and you are mistaken about violating that other law.

(4) Negating “willfulness” WRT a complex statutory scheme (Cheek v. United States; United States v. Moran) = an earnest belief that you are not violating a complex legal code (tax code and copyright law) is a valid defense, because the violation is not voluntary and intentional.

(5) Mistake of Fact (Oglivie) =
(a) Specific Intent offense (false official statement) = an earnest belief in the mistaken fact (being divorced) is a valid defense
(b) General Intent offense (bigamy) = an earnest AND reasonable belief in the mistaken fact (being divorced) is a valid defense

Conduct

(1) Must be voluntary to be criminal (Martin)

(2) 8th Amendment prohibits punishment of a condition, but it is permissible to punish conduct that spills into public areas (Kellogg)

(3) Conduct can be used for grading (murder v. aiding and abetting suicide in Joseph G)

Grading

(1) Conduct can be used for grading (murder v. aiding and abetting suicide in Joseph G, robbery v. theft in Keeton or Carter)

(2) Attendant Circumstances can be used for grading (distance from school in Alvarez, weight of drug in Ryan and Whitaker, intent when entering in Sparks, minors in sexually explicit acts in X-Citement)

(3) Lesser Included Offense (theft and robbery in Keeton, bank larceny and bank robbery in Carter)

(4) Severity of result (aggravated child abuse in Ducker, value of property stolen in Cowden, Shedrick, and Perry )

mens rea terms

(1) “Willfully”/general intent = a voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty (MPC equates this to “Knowingly”)

(2) Specific intent = the intent to perform some act along with the desire to produce some result/harm (MPC treats specific intent as an attendant circumstance element)

(3) “Deliberately” (Joseph G) = a purposeful act done in order to produce some additional harmful result, perhaps also with deliberation in advance (MPC = use “Purposely”)

(3) “Maliciously” (V.V.) = no fixed meaning, but can usually be satisfied by MPC knowingly or purposely

(4) Purposely = conscious object to engage in conduct of that nature, to cause such a result, or knows or hopes that an attendant circumstance exists.

(5) Knowingly = aware that his conduct is of that nature, that it is practically certain that his conduct will cause such a result, or is aware that an attendant circumstance exists. Can also be satisfied by willful blindness.

(6) Recklessly = consciously disregards a substantial risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct

(7) Negligently = should be aware of a substantial risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct

(8) Strict liability = guilty regardless of state of mind. Applies to regulatory crimes (see Balint test) or when a crime/element expressly made strict liability by legislature. MPC does not accept strict liability in any circumstance.

mens rea applied

(1) MPC rules = Shedrick, Ryan, Hale (“willful blindness” to prove knowledge)

(2) Staples rule = Staples, Ducker, X-Citement Video, Elonis, Rehaif,

(3) Strict liability = Alvarez, Whitaker, Balint, Rizo-Rizo, Loge

(4) Specific intent = Schminkey, Oglivie, Moon, Hunte

(5) General intent = Stark, Oglivie

(6) Other terms = Joseph G. “deliberately,” V.V. “maliciously”

ejusdem generis applied

(1) McBoyle: airplane ≠ “vehicle”

(2) Jacques: fenced-in area ≠ “structure”

(3) Yates: fish ≠ “tangible object”

Rule of Lenity applied

(1) Santos: proceeds = profits, not receipts

(2) Evans: corporation = person (Rule of Lenity requested by Evans but not applied)

Case Law: Criminal Trespass

(1) People v. Luke:

A person knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a building when he is aware that he is not licensed or privileged to do so.

Luke accidentally entered the public housing building, believing that he was licensed to enter to visit his aunt. Thus he was not guilty of criminal trespass.

(2) Jacques: a fenced-in area is not a structure under the “entering without breaking” statute

Case law: Robbery

(1) State v. Keeton: intent (to threaten force) may be inferred from the circumstances of the transaction and actions of the defendant.

(2) Carter v. United States: bank larceny is not a lesser included offense of bank robbery because it contains three elements that bank robbery does not contain.
Both robbery and larceny:
- takes
- any thing of value
- belonging to/in possession of any bank

Larceny but not robbery:
- carries away
- intent to steal or purloin
- value exceeding $1,000

Case law: burglary

People v. Sparks

Case law: theft

(1) State v. Moon: Embezzlement = theft of funds entrusted to you by your employer. Theft = taking the property of another with the intent to permanently deprive

(2) People v. Perry: “use of a hotel room” is property, and Perry used deception to deprive the hotel of its value permanently

Case Law: Extortion

(1) United States v. Jackson: A threat to disclose information which will damage someone’s reputation is extortionate if
(1) The person making the demand has no rightful legal claim to the money (especially not that much money); and
(2) The demand for payment has no nexus with the threat to disclose (the threat would not resolve the claim if it came to fruition, rather, making good on the threat makes payment less likely)

(2) United States v. Avenatti: The Jackson rule applied:
(1) Lawyer had no rightful legal claim to money from Nike (especially not that much money)
(2) Lawyer’s threat had no nexus to the demanded payment (if he disclosed the information, he would lose his leverage)

Case Law: Constructive Possession

Cases:
(1) Kier: elements not met for joint on the floorboard

(2) Hunte: All members of the group had joint possession of the drugs

(3) Pigford: Possession can be inferred from the fact that the defendant had
(1) dominion AND
(2) control
over his trailer and its contents (which included the marijuana).

Possession alone does not prove knowledge, but knowledge can be inferred from the circumstances

(4) Garcia: Guilty knowledge includes knowledge of both
(1) the presence of and
(2) the illicit nature of
the substance possessed.

(5) Ryan: (1) Defendant has to know the pure weight of the drug he possessed.
(2) Knowledge of the pure weight of the drug possessed can be inferred from evidence like negotiations concerning weight, potency, price, or number of doses.

Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Criminal Law Flashcards

Study for the practice midterm

Brainscape's Knowledge Genome^TM