Criminal Law Flashcards
Criminal Law: Jurisdiction
A state acquires jurisdiction over a crime if either THE CONDUCT or THE RESULT happened in that state
More than one state can have jurisdiction
Merger
Generally, no merger
Conspiracy DOES NOT MERGE into the substantive offense. You can be convicted of conspiring to do something and doing it
2 victims, 2 crimes, no merger
Merger: Exception to the General Rule
Solicitation and attempt do merge into the substantive offense.
If you had completed a crime, you cannot be convicted of attempting to commit that crime.
Elements of Crimes
Act (actus reus)
Mental state (mens rea)
Concurrence: physical act and mental act existed at the same time
Harmful result and causation: harmful result is caused by the defendant’s act
Physical Act
Any bodily movement; most be voluntary
Physical Act: Not Voluntary
Conduct which is not the product of your own volition (e.g. reflexive/convulsive act)
Act performed while unconscious or asleep
Omission as an Act: General Rule
No legal duty to rescue, but sometimes there is a legal duty to act. Can arise in 5 circumstances
Legal Duty to Act: 5 Circumstances
(1) by statute
(2) by contract
(3) because of the relationship between the parties (“status relationship”)
(4) because you voluntarily assume a duty of care and fail to adequately perform it
(5) where your conduct created the peril
4 Common Mental States of a Crime
(1) specific intent crimes
(2) malice crimes
(3) general intent crimes
(4) strict liability crimes
Specific Intent Crimes
Qualify for additional defenses not available for other types of crimes (voluntary intoxication, unreasonable mistake of fact)
Specific Intent Crimes Mnemonic
Students can always fake a laugh, even for ridiculous bar facts
Solicitation (inchoate offense)
Conspiracy (inchoate offense)
Attempt (inchoate offense)
First-degree murder
Assault
Larceny
Embezzlement
False Pretenses
Robbery
Burglary
Forgery
Malice Crimes
Characterized by reckless indifference
(1) Murder
(2) Arson
General Intent Crimes
All crimes not otherwise specified unless they qualify for strict liability.
Most important: battery and rape.
Defendant has a general awareness that she is acting in a manner that would be prohibited by law.
Strict Liability
Any defense that negates intention cannot be a defense to the NO INTENT crimes of strict liability.
If crime is in the administrative, regulatory, or morality area and you don’t see adverbs in the statute such as knowingly, willfully, or intentionally, then the statute is meant to be a no intent crime of strict liability
Mental States and MPC: Purposely
One acts purposely when it is his conscious objective to engage in certain conduct or cause a certain result
Mental States and MPC: Knowingly
One acts knowingly when he is aware that his conduct will very likely cause the result
Mental States and MPC: Recklessly
One acts recklessly when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk
Mental States and MPC: Negligently
One acts negligently when he fails to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk
Concurrence requirement
Defendant must have had the intent necessary for the crime at the time he committed the act constituting the crmie
Causation
Some crimes (e.g. homicide) require a harmful result and causation.
When a crime is defined to include not merely conduct, but also a specified result, the defendant’s conduct must be both the cause-in-fact and the proximate cause of the specified result.
Common Law: Principals in the First Degree
Persons who actually engage in the act that constitutes the criminal offense
Common Law: Principals in the Second Degree
Persons who aid, advise, or encourage, the principal and are present at the crime
Common Law: Accessories Before the Fact
Persons who aid, advise, or encourage the principal but are not present at the crime
Common Law: Accessories After the Fact
Persons who assist the principal after the crime.
Modern Statutes: Parties to a Crime
Most jurisdictions have abolished the distinctions between principals in the first degree, principals in the second degree, and accessories before the fact (accessories after the fact are still treated separately)
Modern Construction: Principal
One who, with the requisite mental state, actually engages in the act or omission that causes the criminal result
Modern Construction: Accomplice
One who aids, advises, or encourages the principal in the commission of the crime charged
Modern Construction: Accessory after the Fact
One who receives, comforts, or assists another knowing that he has committed a felony, in order to help the felon escape arrest, trial, or conviction
Accomplice Liability: Required Mental State
To be convicted of a substantive crime as an accomplice, accomplice must have
(1) intent to assist the principal in the commission of the crime
(2) intent that the principal commit the crime
Scope of Liability
Accomplice is responsible for the crimes she committed or aided/advised/encouraged and for any other crimes committed in the course of committing the crime contemplated, as long as the other crimes were probable and foreseeable
Accomplices and Withdrawal: Encouragement
If a person encouraged the crime, the person must repudiate the encouragement
Accomplices and Withdrawal: Assistance
If a person aided by providing assistance to the principal (such as giving materials), he must do everything possible to neutralize this assistance (such as attempting to retrieve the materials)
Accomplices and Withdrawal: Alternate Means
Contact the police
Inchoate Offenses
Incomplete
3 inchoate offenses
(1) Conspiracy
(2) Solicitation
(3) Attempt
Conspiracy
An agreement, with an intent to agree, and an intent to pursue an unlawful objective
Conspiracy: Merger
NO MERGER.
Conspiracy does NOT merge with the substantive offense. You CAN be convicted of conspiring to do something and doing it.
Conspiracy: Agreement Required
The agreement NEED NOT BE EXPRESSED.
Intent can be inferred from conduct.
Conspiracy: Bilateral Approach
Traditional (common law rule)
Two guilty parties.
If one person is merely feigning agreement, the other person cannot be guilty of conspiracy.
Acquittal of all persons with whom a defendant is alleged to have conspired PRECLUDES conviction of the remaining defendant.
Conspiracy: Unilateral Approach
Modern trend (& MPC)
Only one person need have a genuine criminal intent
Conspiracy: Overt Act Majority Rule
Majority rule is that in order to ground liability for conspiracy there must be an agreement plus some overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
Any little act will do to be an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy, even an act of mere preparation
Conspiracy: Overt Act Minority Rule
Common law and minority rule grounded liability for conspiracy with agreement itself.
Conspiracy: Factual Impossibility
No defense to conspiracy
Conspiracy: Withdrawal
Withdrawal, even if it is adequate, can never relieve the defendant from liability for the conspiracy itself.
Defendant can withdraw from liability for the other conspirator’s SUBSEQUENT crimes.
Cannot withdraw from this conspiracy.