Criminal Law and Procedure Flashcards
malice
common law murder and arson
shown with at least reckless disregard of an obvious or high risk that a particular result would occur
general intent
D is aware they are acting int he proscribed manner and that any attendant circumstances required by the crime are present
Can be inferred from doing the act
MPC purposely
conscious object to engage in act or cause a certain result
MPC Knowingly
as to nature of conduct: aware of the nature of conduct or that circumstances exist; as to result: knows that conduct will necessarily or very likely cause result
MPC Recklessly
conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that circumstances exist or a prohibited result will follow, and this disregard is a gross deviation from a “reasonable person” standard of care
MPC negligently
failure to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that circumstances exist or a prohibited result will follow, and this disregard is a gross deviation from a “reasonable person” standard of care
elements of accomplice liability
- intentionally aiding, counseling, or encouraging the crime- active aiding, etc. required. mere presence not enough even if D seems to consent to crime or fails to notify police
- if crime is one of recklessness or negligence, accomplice must intend to facilitate commission and act with recklessness or negligence
- liability is for the crime itself and all foreseeable crimes
- accessory after the fact is not an accomplice
accessory after the fact
helping someone escape
not liable for crime itself; separate lesser charge
defenses to accomplice liability
withdrawal is an affirmative defense if prior to crime’s commission
- if encouraged crime, must repudiate encouragement
- if provided material, must neutralize assistance
- or may notify police or otherwise act to prevent crime
solicitation
1) asking someone to commit a crime
2) with intent the crime be committed
defenses to solicitation
the refusal or incapacity of the solicited is not a defense
if legislative intent is to exempt solicitor, that is a defense
conspiracy
1) an agreement to commit an illegal act
2) intent to agree
3) intent to achieve the objective of the agreement
4) an overt act (most jurisdictions)
conspiracy liability
each conspirator is liable for all crimes of other conspirators if foreseeable AND in furtherance of the conspiracy
conspiracy defenses
withdrawal—can only withdraw liability for future crimes
MPC recognizes voluntary withdrawal as defense if the defendant thwarts the conspiracy, like by informing police
If one p
factual impossibility is not a defense
conspiracy merger
no merger- can be convicted of both conspiracy and the substantive offense
attempt
1) specific intent
2) overt act- a substantial step in the direction of the commission of the crime (mere preparation not enough)
defenses to attempt
factual impossibility is not enough (D sets out to do an illegal act but cannot complete act due to unknown reason)
true legal impossibility is a defense (D sets out to do an act he believes is illegal that is actually legal)
abandonment not a defense after substantial steps have begun (CL)
MPC attempt abandonment rule
MPC recognizes abandonment as a defense if (1) fully voluntarily and (2) complete
(ie: not a postponement due to unfavorable circumstances)
insanity: m’naghten test
disease of the mind caused a defect of reason so D lacked the ability at time of his actions to know wrongfulness or understand nature and quality of actions
insanity: irresistible impulse test
unable to control actions or conform conduct to law
insanity: durham test
crime was a product of mental disease or defect
insanity: MPC test
combination of M’Naghten and irresistible impulse test
intoxication
voluntary intox is a defense if it negates specific intent
self defense: non-deadly force
a person may use NDF in self-defense if she reasonably believes force is about to be used on her, no duty to retreat
self defense: deadly force
a person may use DF if she is:
1) without fault
2) confronted by unlawful force
3) reasonably believes that she is threatened with imminent death or great bodily harm
duty to retreat before using deadly force
majority rule- no duty to retreat
minority rule- duty to retreat, except
1) when it cannot be done safely
2) in one’s home
deadly force by original aggressor
only if he tries to withdraw and communicates that to the original victim or if sudden escalation of violence by original victim
use of deadly force to arrest
officer must reasonably believe suspect armed or presents a danger to the public
if fact-finder determines absence of right to self-defense
D may be guilty of voluntary manslaughter under “imperfect self-defense” theory
defense of others or dwelling - non deadly force
person reasonably believes that NDF is necessary to protect other or dwelling (or to end unlawful entry)
defense of others or dwelling- deadly force
only if a person reasonably believes that she is threatened with death or great bodily harm
necessity
choice of evils- harm to society exceeded by harm of criminal act
objective test
not available if D is at fault for creating situation requiring choice
traditionally, choice had to arise from natural forces but modern cases do not have this requirement
duress
defendant performs a criminal act under threat of death or serious bodily harm to him or another
1) threat must be made by another human
2) traditionally the threat to property was not sufficient; MPC recognizes threat to property as sufficient if harm threatened outweighs harm of criminal act