Criminal Law Flashcards
Jurisdiction means the authority of a sovereign to ______ substantive criminal law.
create
MERGER
Defendant offers Hitman $1,000 to murder Victim, and Hitman does so. Can Defendant be convicted of either solicitation or criminal homicide?
Yes. Under modern, law, Defendant can be prosecuted and convicted for either; instigating makes him an accomplice to the homicide. However, Defendant cannot be convicted of both, since solicitation merges into the liability he incurs as an accomplice to Hitman’s criminal homicide.
MERGER
Defendant offers Hitman $1,000 to murder Victim, and Hitman does so. Can Defendant be convicted of both solicitation and criminal homicide?
No. Under modern, law, Defendant can be prosecuted and convicted for either; instigating makes him an accomplice to the homicide. However, Defendant cannot be convicted of both, since solicitation merges into the liability he incurs as an accomplice to Hitman’s criminal homicide.
PHYSICAL ACT
To save himself from falling, Defendant grabs at a passerby, Victim, causing her severe injury. Has Defendant “acted” so as to be guilty of any crime?
Yes. Defendant is guilty if his grabbing resulted from conscious exercise of will, rather than pure reflex. (But Defendant may be able to invoke necessity as a justification for his actions.)
PHYSICAL ACT
After a quarrel with Husband, Wife takes a fatal overdose of sleeping pills. Husband observes this, and decides to let the pills take their effect although he knows that he could save her by calling a doctor.
Has Husband “acted” so as to be guilty of any crime?
Yes. Because of their special relationship, if Husband has the ability to save Wife (even from consequences of her own act), he has a duty to do so. His breach of that duty is a form of negative act.
PHYSICAL ACT
After a quarrel with Husband, Wife takes a fatal overdose of sleeping pills. Husband observes this, and decides to let the pills take their effect although he knows that he could save her by calling a doctor. He breaches his duty to save her by doing nothing.
His breach of that duty is a form of ___________ act.
negative
PHYSICAL ACT
After a quarrel with Husband, Wife takes a fatal overdose of sleeping pills. Husband observes this, and decides to let the pills take their effect although he knows that he could save her by calling a doctor.
If he has, is his “act” a proximate cause of Wife’s death?
Yes. Husband’s negative act would be a concurrent direct cause of Wife’s death.
PHYSICAL ACT
After a quarrel with Husband, Wife takes a fatal overdose of sleeping pills. Husband observes this, and decides to let the pills take their effect although he knows that he could save her by calling a doctor.
If Husband is otherwise liable for Wife’s death, would it be a defense that Wife herself was guilty of a crime (suicide)?
No. Wife’s own criminal conduct is no excuse. Her death is the combined result of her own affirmative act and Husband’s negative act. She has committed a suicide, but her Husband has simultaneously committed a homicide because his negative act contributed directly to the death of another human being, i.e., his wife.
PHYSICAL ACT
After a quarrel with Husband, Wife takes a fatal overdose of sleeping pills. Husband observes this, and decides to let the pills take their effect although he knows that he could save her by calling a doctor.
Wife’s death by her own hands is an _______ act.
affirmative
PHYSICAL ACT
After a quarrel with Husband, Wife takes a fatal overdose of sleeping pills. Husband observes this, and decides to let the pills take their effect although he knows that he could save her by calling a doctor.
Would it be a defense that Wife had in effect consented to die?
No. Wife cannot give effective consent to a homicide.
PHYSICAL ACT
Defendant assaults Victim with intent to rape her. In an attempt to escape, Victim falls into the river, is overcome by the current, and drowns.
If Defendant could have rescued her, but chose not to, has he “acted” so that her death is attributable to him?
Yes. Having caused her to be in a position of peril, his failure to rescue is an act of homicide.
PHYSICAL ACT
Defendant assaults Victim with intent to rape her. In an attempt to escape, Victim falls into the river, is overcome by the current, and drowns.
Would Defendant have committed a homicide if he lacked the ability to save Victim (e.g., Defendant could not swim and there was no other way of saving Victim)?
Yes. He did not commit a homicide by his failure to rescue, as it is stipulated that he lacked the ability to do so. He has committed a homicide because his effort to rape has indirectly led to Victim’s drowning. Her own intervening act of falling into the river is a dependent intervening force, which is not a totally abnormal response to what Defendant did.
PHYSICAL ACT
Defendant assaults Victim with intent to rape her. In an attempt to escape, Victim falls into the river, is overcome by the current, and drowns.
Her own intervening act of falling into the river is a _______ intervening force.
dependent
PHYSICAL ACT
Defendant assaults Victim with intent to rape her. In an attempt to escape, Victim falls into the river, is overcome by the current, and drowns.
Would Defendant have committed a homicide if he was unaware of Victim’s predicament (e.g., Defendant had tuned away just before Victim fell into the river)?
Yes. He did not commit a homicide by his failure to rescue, as it is stipulated that he was unaware of her predicament. He has committed a homicide because his efforts to rape has indirectly led to Victim’s drowning. Moreover, A purely accidental and unintended killing may be a felony murder.
PHYSICAL ACT
Defendant assaults Victim with intent to rape her. In an attempt to escape, Victim falls into the river, is overcome by the current, and drowns. Before Victim drowned, her predicament was observed by Witness, who was an expert swimmer.
If Witness failed to go to Victim’s assistance because “he didn’t want to get involved,” is Witness guilty of homicide?
No. Witness had no duty to act, because Witness had no relationship with Victim.
PHYSICAL ACT
Defendant assaults Victim with intent to rape her. In an attempt to escape, Victim falls into the river, is overcome by the current, and drowns. Before Victim drowned, her predicament was observed by Witness, who was an expert swimmer.
Suppose Witness knew Victim, hated her, and purposefully refrained from assisting her in order that she would drown. Would Witness now be guilty of homicide?
No. Witness still had no duty; he did not cause her predicament.
