Criminal Law

Question 1

[CRIM LAW] • 4 • Inchoate Offenses • Attempt •

Answer 1

A person is guilty of attempt if the person (1) had the specific intent to commit a crime AND (2) took a substantial step toward the completion of that crime (mere preparation is not enough). Attempt merges with the underlying crime. Thus, a person CANNOT be convicted for attempting to commit a crime and the crime itself.

Question 2

[CRIM LAW] • 3 • Inchoate Offenses • Conspiracy •

Answer 2

A conspiracy requires an (1) express or implied agreement between two or more people; (2) intent to enter into the agreement; (3) intent to pursue an unlawful objective (a majority of jurisdictions require this element to be met by all parties of the agreement, while a minority of jurisdictions only require it to be met by one party), AND (4) the commission of an overt act in furtherance of the unlawful objective. An overt act DOES NOT need to be criminal in nature; any act taken by a co-conspirator in furtherance of the unlawful objective is sufficient. Co-conspirators are liable for the conspiracy itself AND all foreseeable crimes committed by co-conspirators in furtherance of the unlawful objective. Conspiracy does NOT merge with the completed crime, therefore one can be charged with the conspiracy to commit the crime AND the crime itself. Withdrawal is a defense to the crime, but NOT the conspiracy.

Question 3

[CRIM LAW] • 1 • Accomplice Liability • •

Answer 3

An accomplice is one who (1) aids, abets, or facilitates the commission of a crime (2) with the intent that the crime be committed. An accomplice is liable for the crimes committed by the principal AND all foreseeable crimes. Merely being present when a crime is committed, or knowing that a crime might result, will NOT create accomplice liability. Withdrawal is a defense to liability and is valid ONLY IF the accomplice withdraws his involvement before the crime becomes unstoppable.

Question 4

[CRIM LAW] • 1 • Accomplice Liability • Accessory After the Fact •

Answer 4

A person is liable as an accessory after the fact if that person knowingly aids a felon in escape from arrest, trial, conviction, and/or punishment.

Question 5

[CRIM LAW] • 1 • Offenses Against the Person • Battery •

Answer 5

Battery is the (1) unlawful application of force , (2) directly or indirectly upon another person , their clothes, or close personal belongs, (3) that results in injury or offensive contact. Battery is a general intent crime , meaning the prosecution need only prove that the unlawful act itself was intended; intent to cause injury is NOT required.

Question 6

[CRIM LAW] • 5 • Homicide • Murder in the First and Second Degree •

Answer 6

Second-degree murder is the unlawful killing of a person with malice aforethought. Malice is established on a showing of (1) an intent to kill ; (2) an intent to inflict great bodily injury ; (3) a reckless indifference to human life; OR (4) an intent to commit an inherently dangerous felony under the felony murder rule.

First-degree murder is a killing that was deliberate (specific intent to kill) AND premeditated.

Under the doctrine of transferred intent, if the defendant intended to kill one person, but mistakenly kills another, intent is transferred to the actual victim and the defendant is still liable.

Question 7

[CRIM LAW] • 2 • Homicide • Felony Murder Rule •

Answer 7

Under the felony-murder rule, ALL participants are guilty for murder if a person is killed while the participants are committing/attempting to commit an inherently dangerous felony (i.e. burglary, arson, rape, robbery, or kidnapping). Depending on the jurisdiction, the rule may extend to a death caused by officers or bystanders, and even the death of a participant. Liability ends once the defendant has reached a place of temporary safety. To be convicted under the felony murder rule, the defendant must be found guilty of the underlying felony , which must be independent from the death that occurred.

Question 8

[CRIM LAW] • 4 • Homicide • Voluntary Manslaughter •

Answer 8

Voluntary manslaughter is an intentional killing with adequate provocation. Adequate provocation is established if: (1) the defendant was provoked (a sudden and intense passion caused him to lose control); (2) a reasonable person would have been provoked; (3) there was not enough time to cool off before the killing; AND (4) the defendant in fact did not cool off before the killing.

Question 9

[CRIM LAW] • 1 • Homicide • Involuntary Manslaughter •

Answer 9

Involuntary manslaughter is an unintentional killing that results either from (1) criminal negligence (the defendant knew or should have known that his conduct had a high or unreasonable risk of death); OR (2) misdemeanor-murder (a killing that results during the commission of a misdemeanor that is inherently dangerous).

Question 10

[CRIM LAW] • 2 • Offenses Against Property • Receipt of Stolen Goods •

Answer 10

A person is liable for receipt of stolen goods if she receives, buys, or accepts property that she knew or should have known was stolen.

Question 11

[CRIM LAW] • 1 • Offenses Against Property • Embezzlement •

Answer 11

Embezzlement is the fraudulent or wrongful conversion of the personal property of another by one who is in lawful possession of the property.

Question 12

[CRIM LAW] • 2 • Offenses Against Property • Larceny, Larceny by False Pretense, and Larceny by Trick •

Answer 12

Larceny is the trespassory taking and carrying away of the personal property of another with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property. The intent to permanently deprive MUST exist at the time of the taking. Larceny by false pretenses occurs when one obtains title to personal property of another through intentional and legitimate fraud. Larceny by trick occurs when one obtains possession of personal property of another by trick or deception.

Question 13

[CRIM LAW] • 1 • Offenses Against Property • Continuing Trespass Doctrine •

Answer 13

Under the continuing trespass doctrine, a trespass is continued until the intent to permanently deprive arises. This means a person is still be liable for larceny for taking and carrying away of the personal property of another EVEN THOUGH the intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property did not arise until after the taking.

Question 14

[CRIM LAW] • 1 • Offenses Against Property • Burglary •

Answer 14

Burglary is (1) the breaking and entering (entry without consent, through an unlocked door/window, or even partial entry is sufficient); (2) of a dwelling ; (3) of another ; (4) at night ; (5) for the purpose of committing a felony inside. Most jurisdictions have extended these elements to include burglary of any structure at any time.

Question 15

[CRIM LAW] • 1 • Offenses Against the Person AND Property • Extortion •

Answer 15

Extortion is illegally obtaining property by force or threats of violence, property damage, or exposing information.

Question 16

[CRIM LAW] • 1 • Offenses Against the Person AND Property • Robbery •

Answer 16

Robbery is the trespassory taking and carrying away of the personal property of another from a person in their presence by the use of force or threat of immediate physical harm with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property.

Question 17

[CRIM LAW] • 2 • Defenses to Crimes • Defenses to Incomplete Crimes • Impossibility

Answer 17

Legal impossibility IS a defense to a crime. Legal impossibility occurs when the defendants acts would NOT have constituted a crime because those acts are not a crime (even if the acts were as the defendant assumed, the defendant would not have committed a crime).

Factual impossibility is NOT a defense to an incomplete crime. Factual impossibility occurs when the defendants acts would have constituted a crime, BUT FOR a circumstance or fact unknown to the defendant (if the facts were as the defendant assumed, the defendant would have committed a crime).

Question 18

[CRIM LAW] • 1 • Defenses to Crimes • Mistake of Fact •

Answer 18

A mistake of fact is NOT a defense UNLESS it negates the specific intent required for the offense.

Question 19

[CRIM LAW] • 1 • Defenses to Crimes • Insanity (4 tests) •

Answer 19

A defense of insanity will be analyzed under one of four tests, all of which consider the defendants mental state at the time of the offense :

(1) The MNaughten Test : the defendant must have been unable to know the wrongfulness of his conduct OR unable to understand the nature and quality of his acts;
(2) The Irresistible Impulse Test : the defendant must have been unable to control his actions OR unable to conform his actions to the law;
(3) The Durham Test : the defendant must show that his unlawful conduct was the product of a sick mind ; AND
(4) The Model Penal Code : the defendant must have been unable to appreciate the criminality of his conduct OR unable to conform his actions to the law.

Question 20

[CRIM LAW] • 1 • Intoxication • •

Answer 20

Voluntary intoxication (the ingestion of an intoxicating substance by the defendants own free will) is ONLY a defense to specific intent crimes IF it negates the state of mind required to commit the offense. Involuntary intoxication (the ingestion of an intoxicating substance by force or without knowledge of its nature) is a defense to all crimes IF the defendant would be considered insane at the time of the offense. An involuntary intoxication defense is analyzed under the same tests as an insanity defense.

Question 21

[CRIM LAW] • 2 • Self-Defense and Defense of Others • •

Answer 21

Self-defense is a complete defense to murder , and is justified when the defendant kills another based on a reasonable belief that (1) she was in imminent danger of being killed or suffering great bodily injury; AND (2) the use of deadly force was necessary to defend against the danger. The same rules apply to the defense of others. Deadly force may be used if such use is justified. However, in a minority of jurisdictions, there is a duty to retreat before deadly force may be used. In those jurisdictions, the defendant must show that there was no opportunity to retreat OR that retreat could not have been accomplished safely. There is NO duty to retreat if the defendant was attacked in her own home.

Question 22

[CRIM LAW] • 1 • Imperfect Self-Defense • •

Answer 22

An imperfect self-defense is a mitigating defense to murder that can reduce a murder charge to voluntary manslaughter. An imperfect self-defense is justified when the defendant kills another based on a good faith belief that (1) she was in imminent danger of being killed or suffering great bodily injury; AND (2) the use of deadly force was necessary to defend against the danger; (3) BUT at least one of those beliefs was unreasonable. Only some courts allow the imperfect self-defense to be applied to situations where the defendant was defending another person.