CRIMINAL LAW BAR

Question 1

name the specific intent crimes

Answer 1

Solicitation (inchoate offense):

conspiracy (inchoate)

intent to agree and attempt (inchoate) first-degree murder Pre-meditated homicide assault larceny embezzlement false imprisonment robbery burglary forgery

Question 2

General intent

Answer 2

rape, battery and others not enumerated under specific intent or as MALICE (general intent also): Murder and Arson.

Question 3

The Malice crimes are

Answer 3

Murder* and arson. As general intent crimes, voluntary intoxication is NOT a defense. *(at common law; now in MPC 2nd degree murder bcs 1st degree murder requires premeditation.)

Question 4

Strict liability

Answer 4

Does not require awareness of all the elements of the crime, e.g. statutory rape. There is no defense of lack of intent, consent, or mistake or fact. If you did it, you are GUILTY. (note if there was a mistake as to age in SR, probably still no defense but remotely possible if can convince that there was a genuine mistake) It’s just the conscious commission of proscribed act.

Question 5

Malice is

Answer 5

reckless disregard of an obvious or high risk that the particular harm will result. NOT A SPECIFIC INTENT

Question 6

Effect of intentionally using a deadly weapon

Answer 6

PERMISSIVE inference of intent to kill

Question 7

A crime requires

Answer 7

proof of a voluntary act (can’t be unconscious) or certain type of omission in concurrence with a mental state. Some crimes require proof of result and causation. Note that possession is an act.

Question 8

What are the type intent (these are common law concepts)

Answer 8

General intent: awareness of acting in a proscribed manner. Intent can be inferred from the act itself. Specific intent: (Students can always fake a laugh,even for ridiculous bar facts). Intent to engage in proscribed conduct. Malice: reckless disregard of or indifference to the obvious or highly likely risk that the particular harmful result will occur. Strict liability: conscious commission of a proscribed act that is criminal by statute

Question 9

Solicitation:

Answer 9

Asking someone to commit a crime with the that the person do so. (SPECIFIC INTENT CRIME)It is not necessary for them to act for you to commit the solicitation. Factual impossibility is no defense. Once they agree to commit the crime, you have formed a CONSPIRACY under the merger doctrine.

Question 10

Conspiracy (tricky little bugger)

Answer 10

An agreement, with an intent to agree, to pursue an unlawful objective or a lawful objective by unlawful means. (trick to watch for: objective is not unlawful in fact pattern). Conspiracy does not merge with the substantive crime. There can be both the crime of conspiracy and the actual crime. Conspiracy is specific intent crime. Specific intent to agree and to achieve the objective. Common law conspiracy requires two or more people with the intent of the crime. If one of the parties (in case of two) is just faking it, then there is no conspiracy. Modern trend and MPC use the unilateral approach: only one has to genuinely intend. Common law conspiracy is completed when agreement made. Modern trend is when there has been overt act in furtherance. Usually a tiny act of preparation will suffice. Each conspirator is liable for ALL the crimes committed in furtherance of the conspiracy that were foreseeable. The conspiracy ends when the objective is achieved (or the government intervenes). Conspiracy does not extend to concealment.

Question 11

Conspiracy defenses

Answer 11

It’s specific intent. and completed with only a tiny act in furtherance. Factual impossibility not defense. Withdrawal is not a defense, not even with active renunciation. It must be done in time for others to abandon their plans and done by an affirmative act, not just ceasing to conspire. However, it may relieve D of liability for further crimes in furtherance of the conspiracy. At trial: If only D is charged with conspiring and then only D is prosecuted, D can be found guilty. But if all the others have been acquitted, D cannot be found guilty. f all the others have been acquitted, the last person standing cannot be guilty of conspiracy under common law. (Traditional view: Some jx allow distinct verdicts in separate trials.)

Question 12

Attempt is:

Answer 12

Specific attempt and an overt act in furtherance of the crime. the act must be a substantial step, NOT just mere preparation.

Question 13

Defenses to attempt

Answer 13

Almost none if you’ve gotten to the overt act. Factual impossibility NOT. Withdrawal, NOT. Never in CL. In MPC full withdrawal and complete renunciation of criminal purpose. Legal impossibility is a defense, meaning the objective wasn’t a crime, even if they thought it was.

Question 14

Insanity

Answer 14

The four definitions are: M’Naghten, Irresistible Impulse, Durham, and Model Penal Code.

Question 15

Insanity M’Naghten

Answer 15

At time of conduct, D lacked the ability to know the wrongfulness of his actions or understand the nature and quality of his actions.

Question 16

Irresistible Impulse is:

Answer 16

Because of a mental illness, defendant lacked the capacity for self-control and free choice.

Question 17

Durham (only applied in NH)

Answer 17

D’s conduct is a product of mental illness. I.e. but for the mental illness D would not have done the act.

Question 18

MPC (the modern trend)

Answer 18

D gets acquittal if he had a mental disease or defect and, as a result, lacked the substantial capacity to EITHER: appreciation the criminality of his conduct OR conform his conduct to requirements of law.

Question 19

Intoxication as a defense

Answer 19

Voluntary: Defense to specific intent crimes but can’t be for general intent. Addicts and alcoholics are deemed voluntarily intoxicated. Involuntary: (You are forced to ingest). Is considered a form of insanity and is a defense to all crimes.

Question 20

Infancy:

Answer 20

Rule of 7: Child under 7 has no criminal liability. Under age 14, rebuttable presumption of no liability.

Question 21

Mistake of Fact:

Answer 21

MoF is defense only when the mistake negates the intention. Mistake must be reasonable to be a defense to malice or general intent crimes. On the exam, any mistake of fact, no matter how ridiculous is defense to specific intent crimes. Mistake of fact is never defense to strict liability. (Except the note on statutory rape.)

Question 22

Entrapment

Answer 22

is a defense if the criminal design originated with law enforcement and D was not pre-disposed to commit the crime.(always discuss entrapment even if it doesn’t apply when “law enforcement” or undercover appears in fact pattern.

Question 23

mistake of law as defense

Answer 23

Generally ignorance of mistaken understanding of the law is NG. However, if belief came from advice from a lawyer and acting in reliance on that advice negates an element of the crime in question, it means the state hasn’t proven their case w PBRD.

Question 24

ASSAULT

Answer 24

an attempt to commit battery OR intentional creation – other than by mere words – of reasonable apprehension of imminent bodily harm. any touching makes it battery. Think of 2 separate crimes and be sure to mention the appropriate one discussing any other criminal situation. 1. Attempted battery assault ( a specific intent crime) and 2) Creation-of-Reasonable-Apprehension assault. AGGravated assault is with a deadly weapon or with intent to rape or maim.

Question 25

BATTERY

Answer 25

Unlawful application of force to the person of another resulting in bodily harm or an offensive touching. Simple batt. is a misdemeanor. Need not be force directly applied. Indirect, e.g. dog. Need not be intentional. AGG battery is treated as a felony in most jx: with a deadly weapon, resulting in serious bodily harm, battery of child, woman or police officer. (Mayhem is uually folded into battery)

Question 26

HOMICIDE

Answer 26

COMMON LAW: 3 types Murder Voluntary Manslaughter Involuntary Manslaughter

Question 27

Murder

Answer 27

Unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought.