Criminal Law Flashcards
Jurisdiction to punish crimes - state v federal
Federal government can punish crimes that occurred in US territory, ships or planes in high seas or high airs, or any US citizen/permanent resident abroad.
States can only punish crimes that have some connection with the state. Includes:
- Crime that occurs in whole or in part inside the state
- Conduct outside of state involving attempt to commit crime within the state
- Not enough that state is where criminal usually lives, without more
Actus Reus
Required for any crime – there must be some act involved. Has to be a voluntary act. Callous bystanders, generally not guilty of any crime, if they had no duty or special relationship.
Specific intent crime
Defendant committed actus reus with specific intent of committing that crime. Four categories:
- First-degree murder
- Inchoate crimes: Conspiracy, attempt, solicitation
- Assault with attempt to commit battery
- Theft offenses: Larceny, embezzlement, forgery, burglary and robbery.
Malice Crimes
Arson and murder (everything other than 1st degree murder). Exists when D acts in reckless disregard of a high risk of harm.
General intent crimes
Intended to perform an unlawful act - did not need to know that the act was unlawful, but sufficient that you intended to commit that act e.g. battery, rape, false imprisonment
Strict liability crimes
Where a crime is subject to strict liability, there is no mens rea requirement (no intent required).
Either a statutory/regulatory offense or moral offenses
Merger of crimes
Defendant can be convicted of more than one crime arising out of the same act.
Two categories of merger crime:
1. Lesser-included offences: Where each of the elements of offense appear in another offense but the other offense has something greater.
2. Inchoate and completed offenses: For an attempt or solicitation, if crime ultimately occurs D cannot be convicted of both the attempt and the convicted crime. BUT conspiracy and a complete offense do not merge - someone can be convicted of both.
Principals of a crime
Defendant’s whose acts or omissions form the actus reus of the crime. Can be multiple principals.
Under common law, children under 7 are incapable of committing crimes, age 7-14 rebuttably presumed incapable, and those of at least 14 can be charged as adults
Accomplices to a crime
Same degree of responsibility or guilt as principal - people who assist the principal either before or during the crime, with the intent of assisting the principal to commit the crime.
Crime - accessories after the fact
Not guilty of underlying crime, but separate set of crimes they may have liability for such as obstruction of justice of harboring a fugitive
Crime - Aiders and Abettors
Person who aids or abets D’s commission of a crime has accomplice liability for the substantive crime and may be guilty of conspiracy if there was an agreement to commit the crime and an overt act in furtherance of that agreement.
Crimes: Required mental state of accomplices
Under MPC and majority of states, must act with purpose of promoting or facilitating the commission of the offense and intend to assist or encourage criminal conduct.
Minority approach - must intentionally or knowingly aid or cause another to commit an offense
Crime - transferred intent
When D acts with intent to cause harm to one person or object and that act directly results in harm to another person or object - applies to “bad aim” cases rather than mistaken identity
MPC - transferred intent not specifically recognized, but liability recognized when purposely, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently causing particular result is element of defense.
Mistake as a defense to crime
- Mistake of law - D made a mistake about what the law forbids and permits. General rule is that ignorance of law is no excuse. Exceptions: reliance on high level government interpretations, lack of notice, or specific intent crimes.
- Mistakes of fact - IF strict liablity, never a defense. For general intent, it is a defense only if mistake is reasonable and goes to criminal intent. For specfic intent, mistakes of fact is a defense regardless of if mistake is reasonable or unreasonable.
Insanity as a criminal defense
Four different tests:
- M’Naughten Rule - either didn’t know the nature of the act, or didn’t know that the act was wrong as a result of some mental disease or defect.
- Irresistible impulse - defendants’ mental disease or defect prevents self control.
- Durham Rule - defendant would not have committed the crime but for the mental disease or defect – this has fallen out of favor.
- MPC - due to mental disease or defect., defendant lacked substantial capacity to appreciate wrongfulness of crime.
In major majority of jurisdictions, defendants have the burden of proving insanity. In some jurisdictions, after the defendant introduces the defense, burdens to prosecution to prove sanity, beyond reasonable doubt.
Defense to crime - Intoxication
Involuntary intoxication can be a valid defense to general intent, specific intent, or malice crimes when it negates an element of the mens rea. Not a defense if defendant became intoxicated to complete the crime.
Under MPC, voluntary intoxication is only a defense to crimes where a material element of the crime requires purpose or knowledge and intoxication stopped the defendant from forming that mental state
Crime of conspiracy
Common law – conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit an unlawful act. Modern conspiracy statutes tend to add an element that there be an overt act to further the conspiracy.
If there is no crime, there is no conspiracy, and the overt act can be a lawful act so long as it furthers the conspiracy
Withdraw by conveying intent before overt act occurs - if D cannot withdraw, can limit liability for substantive crimes by informing other conspirators of withdrawal or informing authorities
Chain conspiracy v spoke-hub conspiracy
Chain = co-conspirators are engaged in crime with multiple steps. All conspirators are liable for subsequent crimes in chain.
Spoke-hub = many people deal with a central hub. Participants are not liable for subsequent crimes of their co-conspirators because each spoke feeding into the hub is a separate agreement.
Crime - attempt
Specific intent crime to commit particular criminal act and have to have made a substantial step towards perpetrating that crime.
Defenses for the attempt can be different than the defenses for the completed crime
Crime - Solicitation
Where an individual intentionally invites, requests or commands another person to commit a crime. If other person agrees, then the crime is a conspiracy rather than a solicitation.
Homicide
Generally involves killing of a living human being by another human being. Needs to be some causal relationship between D’s action and victim’s death - actual and proximate cause.
Three kinds:
- First degree murder: Deliberate and premeditated murder or a killing that results from a dangerous felony. Bar exam will tell you if it is 1st degree murder.
- Common law murder: Unlawful killing of a human being committed with malice aforethought. Either intent to kill, intent to inflict serious bodily harm, abandoned/malignant or depraved heart
- Manslaughter - all unlawful killings of a human being that aren’t first degree or common law murder
Voluntary vs involuntary manslaughter
Voluntary manslaughter: Where D intends to kill victim but where his intent is less blameworthy than murder (e.g. heat of passion - Ask if this is the situation where most people would act without thinking and without taking time to cool off?)
Involuntary manslaughter: Criminally negligent killing or killing of another person while committing a crime other than those covered by felony murder.
Larceny
Taking property without consent with intent to deprive someone of property permanently. Involves tangible personal property, and taking involves any movement of the property regardless of how small that movement may be.
Specific intent crime.
Embezzlement
Obtain property initially with victim’s consent but then convert property into another use.
