Criminal Law Flashcards
Bob, standing in California, shoots a high-powered rifle across state lines into Arizona and kills someone. Which state has jurisdiction over the crime?
Both. CA = conduct; AZ = result
Is there merger of crimes in American law?
Generally, no.
_____________ and ___________ do merge into the substantive offense. Thus, if you have completed that crime, you cannot be convicted of _____________________________.
Solicitation & attempt; attempting to commit the crime
Conspiracy does NOT merge into the substantive offense. Thus, you _______ be convicted of conspiring to do something and doing it.
Can
An act can be any bodily movement - but the act must be a _______________.
Voluntary act
Examples of bodily movements that do not qualify for criminal liability:
(1) Conduct which is not the product of your own volition;
(2) A reflexive or convulsive;
(3) An act performed while you are unconscious or asleep.
You are standing waiting for a train when someone pushes you into a 3rd person, who then falls in front of the train, is run over and killed. Would you be held criminally liable?
No. No voluntary act because was pushed.
Generally there is no legal duty _________ but sometimes there is a ________________.
To rescue; legal duty to act
A legal duty to act can arise in one of five circumstances:
(1) By statute
(2) By contract
(3) Because of the relationship between the parties
(4) Because you voluntarily assume a duty of care and fail to adequately perform it
(5) Where your conduct created the peril
Shaq has a party on the lake at his lake lot. Everyone suddenly notices a man flailing in the lake, as if he is about to drown. Shaq tells everyone that he’ll save the man, and he dives into the lake. Shaq swims out to the man and sees that the drowning man is Kobe. Kobe says, “Help all of my championship rings are weighing me down, and I’m drowning.” Shaq says, “That’s terrible - hasta la vista baby,” and then swims back. If Kobe drowns, does Shaq have any criminal liability?
Yes because he assumed a duty to act by saying he would save him.
Dr. Evil has a pool party and is showing off his fancy new laser pointer. He flashes the laser pointer into Austin’s eyes, and Austin falls into the pool. Austin cannot swim, and Dr. Evil decides to laugh, rather than do anything to save Austin. Will Dr. Evil face any criminal liability in this situation?
Yes because he created the problem.
4 Common Law Mental States of a Crime:
(1) Specific intent crimes;
(2) Malice crimes;
(3) General intent crimes;
(4) Strict liability crimes
The importance of specific intent crimes is that they will qualify for ______________ not available for other types of crime.
Additional defenses
Specific Intent Crimes
Students Can Always Fake a Laugh, Even For Ridiculous Bar Facts
(1) Solicitation
(2) Conspiracy
(3) Attempts of any crime
(4) First degree murder
(5) Assault
(6) Larceny
(7) Embezzlement
(8) False pretenses
(9) Robbery
(10) Burglary
(11) Forgery
Type of crime that doesn’t have to be for a specific purpose; reckless disregard of high risk.
Malice Crimes
On the bar exam, there are only 2malice crimes:
(1) Murder; and
(2) Arson
General wrongful intent.
General Intent Crimes
General intent is the big catch-all category. All crimes that are not specific intent or malice crimes unless they qualify for _________________.
Strict liability
Most common general intent crimes:
Rape & battery
I want to kill the woman wearing the Barney the Dinosaur shirt. I pull out my gun, fire it at the woman in the Barney shirt, but the shot misses her and instead hits and kills the woman in the Dora the Explorer shirt sitting behind her. Am I guilty of murder? Why or why not? If so, can I be charged with two crimes?
Yes, guilty of murder because of transferred intent. The intent was to kill one woman, so transferred to the one you did kill.
Can be charged with murder AND attempted murder (no merger!).
No intent crimes.
Strict liability crimes
The importance of strict liability on the bar exam is that any defense that _________________ cannot be a defense to the no intent crimes of strict liability.
Negates intention
Strict liability crimes are the ______________ crimes.
No intent
If the crime is in the administrative, regulatory, or morality area and you don’t see any adverbs in the statute such as ______________, _______________, or _________________, then the statute is meant to be a no intent crime of strict liability.
Knowingly; willfully; intentionally
Linda was 15 years old, but she appeared and acted older. When asked, she always said she was 22, and she carried false identification saying she was that old. She frequented taverns and drank heavily. One evening in a bar she became acquainted with Duke. He believed her when she told him her claimed age. They had several drinks and became inebriated. Later, they drove in Duke’s car to a secluded spot. After they necked for a while, Duke propositioned Linda and she consented. Before Duke achieved penetration, Linda changed her mind saying, “Stop! Don’t touch me! I don’t want to do it.” When Duke did not desist, Linda started to cry and said, “I am only 15.” Duke immediately jumped from the car and ran away. Duke was indicted for, among other crimes, contributing to the delinquency of a minor. The age of consent int he jurisdiction is 16.
If the indictment above were based on a statute reading, “Whoever shall commit an act affecting the morals of a minor under 16 years of age shall be deemed guilty of contributing to the delinquency of a minor and shall be punished by imprisonment in a state penitentiary for a period not to exceed 5 years.”
Duke’s best legal defense would be that:
(A) The statute is unconstitutionally vague.
(B) Linda, the woman in question, consented to his actions.
(C) He was entrapped by Linda’s appearance.
(D) He did not intend to contribute to her delinquency.
(A) The statue is unconstitutionally vague.
(B) is not a defense, so irrelevant. (C) is a legal defense, but has to be a law enforcement officer. (D) doesn’t matter because of strict liability.
Linda was 15 years old, but she appeared and acted older. When asked, she always said she was 22, and she carried false identification saying she was that old. She frequented taverns and drank heavily. One evening in a bar she became acquainted with Duke. He believed her when she told him her claimed age. They had several drinks and became inebriated. Later, they drove in Duke’s car to a secluded spot. After they necked for a while, Duke propositioned Linda and she consented. Before Duke achieved penetration, Linda changed her mind saying, “Stop! Don’t touch me! I don’t want to do it.” When Duke did not desist, Linda started to cry and said, “I am only 15.” Duke immediately jumped from the car and ran away. Duke was indicted for, among other crimes, contributing to the delinquency of a minor. The age of consent int he jurisdiction is 16.
If the indictment above were based on a statute reading, “Whoever shall commit an act affecting the morals of a minor under 16 years of age shall be deemed guilty of contributing to the delinquency of a minor and shall be punished by imprisonment in a state penitentiary for a period not to exceed 5 years.”
With respect to the contributing charge under the statute set out above, proof by Duke that he was so inebriated that he could not have formed a criminal intent would be a:
(A) Good defense, because the charge requires a specific intent.
(B) Good defense, because at least a general criminal intent is required for every offense.
(C) Poor defense, because contributing to the delinquency of a minor is an offense against a child.
(D) Poor defense, because the state of mind of the ∆ is irrelevant to this offense, so long as he was legally sane.
(D) Poor defense, because the state of mind of the ∆ is irrelevant to this offense, so long as he was legally sane.
(A) is incorrect because it is a strict liability crime. (B) is incorrect for strict liability because no intent is required. (C) is true, but irrelevant.
Model Penal Code Mental States:
(1) Purposely;
(2) Knowingly;
(3) Recklessly;
(4) Negligently
Purposely: One acts purposely when it is his ______________ to engage in a certain conduct or cause a certain result.
Conscious objective
Knowingly: One acts knowingly when he is ________ that his conduct will very likely cause the result.
Aware
Recklessly: One acts recklessly when he _________________ a _____________ and ________________ risk.
Consciously disregards; substantial; unjustifiable
Negligently: One acts negligently when he fails to be aware of a ____________ and _____________ risk.
Substantial; unjustifiable
An accomplice is one who _______, ___________, or ___________ the principal in the commmission of the crime charged.
Aids; advises; encourages
Accomplices must also have the requisite __________ that the crime be committed.
Intent
Accomplices are liable for ________________ and all other _________________.
The crime itself; foreseeable crimes
Newman is standing outside of a bank chatting on his cell phone. He sees a van screech to a halt, and 5 masked men jump out and run past Newman into the bank. Newman ends his phone call, pulls out a bag of popcorn, and watches as one of the masked men shoots a gun into the air and yells, “This is a robbery, everybody get down!” Newman laughs as he watches the robbery take place, and then later waves to the men as they leave the bank and speed away in the van. Newman never called the police. Does Newman have any criminal liability as an accomplice?
No. Not enough for aiding/encouraging (passive enjoyment is not enough)
IF a person encouraged the crime, the person must __________ the encouragement in order to withdraw.
Repudiate
If the person aided by providing assistance to the principal (such as giving materials), he must do everything possible to ______________ this assistance (such as attempting to retrieve the materials) in order to withdraw.
Neutralize
An alternate means of withdrawing is to _______________________.
Contact the police in a timely manner (before the crime)
Inchoate means _______________.
Incomplete
There are 3 inchoate offenses:
(1) Solicitation;
(2) Conspiracy; and
(3) Attempt
Rule: Solicitation is _________________________. The crime of solicitation ends when ________________.
Asking someone to commit a crime; you ask them
Note that under the common law, it is not necessary that the person solicited _____________________.
Agree to commit the crime
What if the person you ask to commit the crime agrees to do it? Then it becomes ________________ and the solicitation merges and the only crime left when the other person agrees to do it is _________________.
Conspiracy; conspiracy
Note: _____________________ is no defense to solicitation.
Factual impossibility
Rule: Conspiracy is an agreement, with an intent to agree, and an intent to pursue ________________________.
An unlawful objective
Kramer buys a new “Super Spy Set” and wants to try it out. He and George agree to break into Kramer’s house at midnight with their new tools, grab some silverware and go pawn it. They dress in black clothes and black ski masks, get a ladder, pop the latch on a second floor window with a tool from the super spy set, and enter the house. They then grab some of Kramer’s silverware from the kitchen and pawn it at an all-night pawn shop. Is this a conspiracy?
No because it is not unlawful for Kramer to break into his own house and pawn his own stuff.
Conspiracy does NOT merge with the substantive offense. On the bar exam you ________ be convicted of conspiring to do something and doing it.
Can
Liability for co-conspirators’ crimes: Each conspirator is liable for ALL the crimes of co-conspirators if those crimes were committed __________________ and crimes were ________________.
In furtherance of conspiracy; foreseeable
Agreement requirement for conspiracies: The agreement ___________________. Intent can be ____________________.
Need not be express; inferred from conduct
Bilateral approach: The traditional (common law) rule required two guilty parties. Thus, under this approach, if one person (in a two-party conspiracy) is merely feigning agreement, the other person ___________ of conspiracy. Furthermore, the acquittal of all persons with whom a ∆ is alleged to have conspired _____________ of the remaining ∆ under this approach.
Cannot; precludes
Unilateral approach: The modern trend (the MPC approach) requires that ________________ have a genuine criminal intent.
Only one person
The majority rule is that in order to ground liability for conspiracy there must be an agreement plus some __________ in furtherance of the conspiracy. The minority rule and the common law rule grounded liability for conspiracy with ___________________.
Overt act; the agreement itself
If you are operating under the majority rule that requires an agreement plus an overt act, _____________ will do to be an overt act in furtherance of conspiracy, even an act of __________________.
Any little act; mere preparation
Notes on the MBE regarding majority and minority rules: Always apply the majority rule __________________________.
Unless specifically told to do otherwise
Factual __________ is no defense to conspiracy.
Impossibility
Withdrawal, even if it is adequate, can never relieve the ∆ from liability for the conspiracy itself. The ∆ can withdraw from liability for the other conspirators’ __________________. But he cannot withdraw from this conspiracy.
Subsequent crimes
Derek and Hansel agreed to break into Matilda’s house in order to get money for their School for Kids Who Can’t Read Good. They were arrested shortly after they pried open Matilda’s back door and entered the house. Both were charged with conspiracy to commit larceny, among other crimes. Derek testified that he had long suspected Hansel of being a thief, and that he agreed to the plan in order to catch Hansel, and that he had made an anonymous telephone call to the police alerting them to the crime, enabling the police to arrest them “in the act.” Derek also testified that he did not intend to keep the money. Hansel did not testify. The jurisdiction follows common law conspiracy rules.
As to the charge of conspiracy to commit larceny, if the jury believes Derek, it should find him:
(A) Not guilty, because he did not intend to steal.
(B) Not guilty, because he prevented the theft from occurring.
(C) Guilty, because there was an agreement, and the prying open of the back door was sufficient for the overt act.
(D) Guilty, because he is not a police officer, and thus cannot claim any privilege of apprehending criminals.
(A) Not guilty, because he did not intend to steal.
(B) is not relevant. (C) is incorrect because there was never really an agreement. (D) is true, but irrelevant.
Rule for Attempt: (1) Specific intent plus (2) _____________ in furtherance of the crime.
An overt act
For purposes of attempt, the overt act must be a __________________ in furtherance of the commission of the crime, thus, _________________ cannot ground liability for attempt.
Substantial step; mere preparation
Defense of Abandonment: The majority rule is that, once ∆ has taken a substantial step toward committing the crime, abandonment is _______________. The MPC allows for this defense only if it is _______________ and a complete ___________________________.
Never a defense; fully voluntary; renunciation of criminal purpose
Impossibility: ___________ impossibility is a defense to attempt; but __________ impossibility is not a defense.
Legal; factual
Snooki and J-Wow agree to rob an armored car to pay off their tanning salon debt. They purchase the necessary equipment and weapons, and rush the armored car when it comes to a stop in front of a bank. However, after throwing the guards out of the armored car,e they discover that there is no money in the armored car. Can Snooki and J-Wow be convicted of attempted armed robbery?
Yes because factual impossibility is not a defense to attempt.
4 tests for insanity:
(1) M’Naghten Rule;
(2) Irresistible Impulse;
(3) Durham Rule;
(4) Model Penal Code
M’Naghten rule: At the time of his conduct, ∆ lacked the ability ____________________ or understand the nature and quality of his actions.
To know the wrongfulness
Irresistible Impulse: ∆ lacked the _________________ and free choice.
Capacity for self-control
Durham Rule: ∆’s conduct _____________________________.
Was a product of mental illness.
Model Penal Code test for Insanity: ∆ lacked _______________________ to the requirements of law.
The substantial capacity to conform his conduct
Self-induced intoxication
Voluntary Intoxication
Voluntary intoxication is a defense on the bar exam only to __________________ (and no other kind of crime).
Specific intent crimes
