Criminal Law Flashcards
What state has jurisdiction over crim case?
The state that conduct or results happened in that state
Merger
Generally, no merger.
Exception: Solicitation and attempt merge into substantive offense.
CONSPIRACY does not merge.
Actus reus
DOES NOT QUALIFY:
- Not the product of own volition
- Reflexive or convulsive act
- Act done while unconscious or asleep.
Legal duty to rescue
Generally no legal duty
Legal Duty to Act
Only a few situations:
Statute: File your taxes
Contract: On duty, lifeguard or nurse has legal duty to act.
Relationship: Parent duty to protect children.
Duty of care: If you assume duty and then fail to adequately perform it.
Conduct created peril
Types of Mental States
Specific intent crime, malice crimes, general intent crimes, and strict liability crimes.
Specific Intent
Important b/c they qualify for additional defenses (voluntary intoxication, unreasonable mistake of fact)
Solicitation Conspiracy Assault First Degree Murder Assault Larceny Embezzlement False Pretenses Robbery Burglary Forgery
Students can always fake a laugh even for ridiculous bar facts.
Malice Crimes
Only 2 types on bar exam: murder and arson
This is reckless disregard or indifference
General Intent
Catch-all category. All crimes other than those listed under malice or spec. intent unless they qualify for strict liability.
Most common rape and battery.
Transferred intent
Transferred intent allows person to be charged with two crimes.
Want to shoot A, but shoot B. Attempted for A, murder for B.
Strict Liability Crimes
No intent crimes– so any defense that negates intent cannot be used.
Note: If the crime is in the admin, regulatory, or morality area and you don’t see any adverbs such as willingly, knowingly, or intentionally, then the statute is meant to be a no intent crime of strict liability.
Mental States and MPC
Do not use unless told MPC applies
Purposefully: COnscious objective
Knowingly: Aware that conduct will very likely cause the result.
Recklessly: consciously disregard a substantial and unjustifiable risk.
Negligently: Fails to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk.
Accomplice liability
One who AIDS, ADVISES, or ENCOURAGES the principal in the commission of the crime charged.
Accomplices must have requisite intent that the crime be committed.
Accomplices are liable for crime itself and all other FORESEEABLE CRIMES.
Accomplice Withdrawal
Encouraged? Must repudiate
Aided? Must do everything to neutralize the assistance
Can withdraw by contacting police.
Inchoate Offenses
INCOMPLETE crime
Three types: Solicitation, conspiracy, and attempt
Solicitation
Crimes ends when completed asking them
CL: Does not require person agree
If person agrees? Becomes conspiracy (merges into conspiracy)
NOTE: Factual Impossibility not a defense
Conspiracy
Agreement, intent to agree, and an intent to pursue an unlawful objective.
Does not merge (can be convicted of conspiracy and other crime)
Liability: Liable for all FORESEEABLE crimes done in FURTHERANCE of conspiracy
Intent can be inferred from conduct. Need not be expressed.
Conspiracy and Bilateral Approach
Need two
If one feigns agreement, other cannot be gulity of conspiracy.
Acquittal of one person whom D alleged to have conspired precludes conviction of remaining Ds.
Unilateral Approach
Requires only one person to have genuine criminal intent.
Conspiracy/Overt Act
Majority rule: requires an overt act in FURTHERANCE of conspiracy. Any little act will do, even mere preparation.
Minority: Agreement alone grounds liability.
MBE: Always apply majority unless told to do minority.
Conspiracy and Factual Impossibility
No DEFENSE to conspiracy.
Withdrawal and conspiracy
Withdrawal will NEVER relieve D from liability for the conspiracy itself. Cannot only withdraw from subsequent crimes.
Attempt
Rule: Specific intent PLUS overt act in FURTHERANCE of crime.
Overt act must be a SUBSTANTIAL STEP. Mere prep NOT enough.
Once substantial step taken, ABANDONMENT is NEVER a defense. MPC allows abandonment but only when FULLY VOLUNTARY and a complete RENUNCIATION of PURPOSE.
McNaughtan Rule
D lacked ability to know the wrongfulness of his actions or understand the nature and quality of his actions.