criminal law final

Question 1

Crime

Answer 1

Conduct which, if duly shown to have taken place, will incur a formal & solemn pronouncement of the condemnation of the community

Question 2

Justifications for Punishment (retribution, utilitarian, reform)

Answer 2

Retribution: Justice demands punishment

Utilitarian: If a criminal is punished, it betters society; Deterrance- prevents criminal conduct from occurring.

Reform: (a) Try to reduce the reoffending rate
and (b) rehabilitate criminals so they are not antisocial when they are released

Question 3

Branches of the Gov. (legislative, executive, judicial)

Answer 3

Legislative: Creates laws (Congress - House of reps & senate)

Executive: Enforces laws (prosecutor, DA, Pres., Police Officers)

Judicial: Interprets laws (judge)

Question 4

Mens Rea

Answer 4

A guilty mind; A guilty or wrongful purpose; A criminal intent

Question 5

Transferred Intent

Answer 5

Punishing the defendant for a crime of the same seriousness as the one he tried to commit against his intended victim.

Question 6

Intent vs. Knowingly

Answer 6

Intent: Goal to achieve circumstance (high probability of the outcome in mind)

Knowingly: Desired outcome is known by the defendant

Question 7

Rule of Lenity

Answer 7

If a statute can go both ways rule in favor of the defendant

Question 8

Doctrine of Strict Liability

Answer 8

Some crimes for which there is no mens rea requirement, action still has to be voluntary, but the defendant does not need to have the requisite mens rea to be convicted of that crime (i.e., traffic violations, issues involving food safety, building safety)

Question 9

Mistake of Law

Answer 9

The defendant AND the law were mistaken
(Defendant concedes to conduct but argues the law is mistaken)

Question 10

Mistake of Fact

Answer 10

Defendant mistakenly believed something to be true that was not (does not have the requisite mens rea)

Question 11

Moral Wrong Doctrine

Answer 11

At common law a reasonable mistake of fact ordinarily exculpates a defendant prosecuted for a general intent crime (the reasonableness of the mistake negates the culpability required for the offense)

Question 12

Legal Wrong Doctrine (Alt.)

Answer 12

If a defendant’s conduct based on the facts as he reasonably (but mistakenly) believes them to be constitutes a crime that is lesser than the one charged strict liability applies to the attendant circumstance element about which he was reasonably mistaken and he may be convicted and punished for the more serious crime

Question 13

Actus Reus

Answer 13

Act (or failure to act) that causes social harm
(MUST be VOLUNTARY)

Question 14

Voluntary Act vs. Omissions (negative acts)

Answer 14

Voluntary act: Criminal Liability may only be imposed when the unlawful conduct is committed voluntarily (not automatisic or in an unconscious state of mind

Omissions (neg acts): Situations in which the failure to act may constitute breach of legal duty (statute, special relationship, duty, vol. assumption of care, created risk of harm)

Question 15

Causation
(actual cause & proximate cause)

Answer 15

A.C But-For Test: A defendant’s conduct is a cause-in-fact of the prohibited result if the
said result would not have occurred “but for” the defendant’s conduct (just be AC, doesn’t mean PC)

P.C.: who or what events among those that
satisfy the but-for standard should be held accountable for the resulting harm (must be AC to be PC)

Question 16

Intervening Cause

Answer 16

Does not break the casual chain of liability, defendant is still guilty (still prox cause)

(a) An act of god (event not traceable to human intermediary) (b) act of an independent third party or (c) act or omission of the victim that assists in bringing about the outcome

If intervening cause is foreseeable based on original criminal conduct, does NOT break chain of causation

Question 17

Superseding Cause

Answer 17

Intervening causes that break the “Causal Chain” and are not foreseeable based on the defendant’s initial criminal conduct… is the proximate cause.

For Med Mal: Only gross negligence breaks chain of liability (u. manslaughter), mere negligence does not

Question 18

Apparent Safety Doctrine

Answer 18

Once the danger from the defendant is no longer present, we no longer consider that defendant a proximate cause

Question 19

Voluntary Human Intervention Doctrine

Answer 19

A victim that makes a free and deliberate decision that contributes to his death should relieve the defendant of liability

Question 20

Battery

Answer 20

MR: Intent or Knowingly without legal justification

AR: Causes bodily harm or makes physical contact that is harmful or offensive

Question 21

Aggravated Battery

Answer 21

MR: Intentionally or knowingly

AR: Causes great bodily harm or permanent disability or disfigurement

Question 22

Intentional Murder

Answer 22

The unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought

Question 23

Intentional M1

Answer 23

Pre-meditation and Deliberation (want of provocation of the deceased, conduct and statements, threats and declarations, ill-will, blows after deceased was helpless, evidence killing done in a brutal manner)

Question 24

Intentional M2

Answer 24

Instantaneous (spontaneous), intent to kill with no separation of time between the intent to kill and the killing

Question 25

Intentional Manslaughter

Answer 25

The unlawful killing of a human being without
malice requiring adequate provocation or in a heat of passion

Rule of Provocation requires:
1. Adequate provocation (must be calculated to inflame the passion of a reasonable man and tend to cause him to act for the moment from passion rather than reason)
2. The killing must have been in the heat of passion
3. Heat of passion must be sudden (the killing must have followed the provocation before there had been a reasonable opportunity for the passion to cool)
3. There must have been a causal connection between the provocation, the passion, and the fatal act

M mitigates to MS when: 1) Discovering one’s spouse in the act of sexual intercourse with another 2) Mutual Combat 3) Assault & Battery

Girouard Rule of Law: Words alone is NOT adequate provocation unless provoking person intends or has ability to cause injury.

Question 26

Felony Murder Rule

Answer 26

Felony + Death = Unintentional 1st/2nd Degree Murder

Question 27

Unintentional M1 (FM1)

Answer 27

Enumerated felony (robbery/burglary)

-If attempted robbery/burglary and unintentional killing coincides… attempted rob/bur + murder charge

Question 28

Unintentional M2 (FM2)

Answer 28

MR: Unenumerated & Inherently Dangerous/ Abandoned & Malignant Heart/ Depraved Indifference; Conscious Disregard

Elements:
1. Objective-Society recognizes a very high degree of danger “in reality”
2. Subjective- Consciously disregarding the danger they are posing and engage in the conduct anyway

FM2: Unenumerated felony, inherently dangerous and HAS an independent felonious purpose

Question 29

Unintentional Manslaughter

Answer 29

Negligence

Merger Doctrine: Unenumerated felony, inherently dangerous with NO independent felonious purpose

Question 30

Larceny

Answer 30

AR: Trespassatory taking and carrying away of the personal property of another with the

MR: The intent to permanently deprive the rightful owner of their property

Question 31

Larceny (expanded)

Answer 31

Misappropriation by a person who with the consent of the owner who already had physical
control over the property

(Person has physical control over the property by the consent of the owner, but by misappropriation, keeps it) (defendant has consent to borrow something, but keeps it)

Question 32

Robbery

Answer 32

Trespassory taking and carrying away of the personal property of another with the intent to steal (larceny) + use of or threat of force

Question 33

Burglary

Answer 33

AR: Entering a house/vehicle

MR: with the intent to commit a crime

Question 34

Criminal Attempts
(MPC vs. CL)

Answer 34

MR: Specific intent (goal/purpose of completing crime)

CL: Dangerous Proximity
MPC: A person is guilty of an attempt to commit a crime if, acting with the kind of culpability otherwise required for the commission of a crime, he-
1. purposely engages in conduct which would constitute the crime if the attendant circumstances were as he believes them to be or
2. when causing a particular result is an element of the crime, does or omits to do anything with the purpose of causing or with the belief that it will cause such result without further conduct on his part or
3.purposely does or omits to do anything which, under the circumstances as he believes them to be, is a substantial step in a course of conduct planned to culminate in his commission of the crime.
SS if: (a) possession of materials to be employed in the commission of the crime serve no other legal purpose or are specifically designed for such unlawful use of which can serve no lawful purpose or
(b) possession, collection or fabrication of materials to be employed in the commission of the crime, at or near the place contemplated for its commission, where such possession, collection or fabrication serves no lawful purpose of the actor under the circumstances.

Question 35

Assault (CL vs. MPC)

Answer 35

CL (attempt to commit a battery): Placing the victim in reasonable fear a battery will occur

MPC:
(a) Attempts to cause or purposely, knowingly or recklessly causes bodily injury to another;
or
(b) Negligently causes bodily injury to another with a deadly weapon; or **IS CL BATTERY
(c) Attempts by physical menace to put another in fear of imminent serious bodily injury

Question 36

Abandoning Attempts
(MPC vs. CL)

Answer 36

MPC: Cross line of demarcation but not complete crime → MUST be voluntary

CL: No abandonment

Once defendant crosses line of completion, cannot abandon attempt for MPC and CL.

Question 37

Solicitation

Answer 37

Attempt to form a conspiracy

AR: Ask, entice, induce, or counsel another to commit a crime

MR: Intent to get another to agree to commit the crime

-If D1 solicits to D2 and they say no, D1 only guilty of solicitation
-Once D1 and D2 agree, solicitation merges with conspiracy

Question 38

Conspiracy

Answer 38

Partnership in criminal purposes; a mutual agreement or understanding, express or implied, between two or more persons to commit a criminal act or to accomplish a legal act by unlawful means

AR: Agreement to commit a crime

MR: Intent to commit the crime

Conspiracy does not merge with substantive crime – separate charges

Question 39

Withdrawal from Conspiracy

Answer 39

Requires – An affirmative and bona-fide rejection or repudiation of the conspiracy, communicated to the co-conspirators

If withdrawal BEFORE overt act: only guilty of conspiracy

If withdrawal AFTER overt act: guilty of conspiracy + target offense + subsequent acts committed by a co-conspirator in pursuance of the common plan

Question 40

Pinkerton Liability

Answer 40

(a) As long as there is a continuous conspiracy, each and every one of the co-conspirators act for each other
- Guilty of both the conspiracy and the substantive crime
(b) The only substantive crime that the passive co-conspirator can be found guilty of (apart from conspiracy) has to be crime within the scope of the conspiracy

IN S.O.C.: Robbery and murder
NOT in S.O.C.: Larceny and murder

Question 41

Linscott Accomplice Liability

Answer 41

Additional grounds for someone to be convicted of crimes carried out by someone else

Dual intent MR:
1) (Intent to act) Intent to do the acts that constitute “assistance” of the primary party; AND
2) (intent of goal) Intent that such assistance results in the commission of the offense charged

AR: The 2nd party (accomplice) assistance
(principal and accomplice guilty for conspiracy)

1. If D. retreats after realizing crime is being committed and doesn’t receive stolen goods: NOT guilty of resulting crimes
2. If defendant intends to commit the primary crime and the secondary crime is foreseeable: GUILTY of both crimes

Question 42

Accomplice Liability

Answer 42

MR: Intend to aid, abet, assist in the crime

AR: Share the criminal intent of the principal in the first degree (primary conduct)

Question 43

Theft by Larceny

Answer 43

Defendant guilty if:
(1) Takes possession;
(2) Of personal property;
(3) Owned by another;
(4) By means of trespass;
(5) With intent to steal (permanently depriving the rightful owner of the property) the
property; and
(6) Carries away the property (does not need to leave premises)

Satisfies the mens rea of larceny even though at the time of the taking the actus reus was not concomitant with the requisite mens rea:
D.’s intent to (a) sell the property back to its owner, (b) claim a reward for “finding” it, or (c) return the property to its owner for a refund.

Question 44

Theft by False Pretenses

Answer 44

Requires all:
(1) That the defendant made a false pretense or representation
(2) That the representation was made with intent to defraud the owner of its property; AND
(3) That the owner was in fact defrauded in that he parted with his property in reliance upon the representation

The false pretense may consist in any act, word, symbol, or token calculated and intended to deceive (may be expressly or implied from words or conduct)

Question 45

Doctrine of Self-Defense (Necessity)

Answer 45

1) Unlawful immediate threat – actual or apparent threat of deadly force; AND
2) Defendant is objectively reasonable in believing
(a) Imminent peril of death OR serious bodily harm; AND
(b) Response was necessary to save himself

Aggressor cannot have this defense unless he makes a good faith effort to renounce themselves as the aggressor and communicate it to the adversary, then SD rights are restored

Question 46

Self-Defense of Others (third-party)
+ Alter ego rule

Answer 46

Individuals right to use force in such circumstances parallels the third party’s right to self-defense

AER (when “other” actually has NO self-defense right): Provided that if A acts on the basis of an objectively reasonable belief, the defense applies to A, even if the person A was “protecting” had no right to self defense.

Question 47

Defense of Habitation

Answer 47

Justifies killing an intruder who is assaulting the defendant’s home with the intent of reaching its occupants and committing a felony (physical) against them
- Homeowner has to reasonably believe that a felony will be committed

Question 48

Defense of Personal Property

Answer 48

Generally, a person may not use deadly force solely to protect one’s personal property.

if person uses moderate force to protect property and the intruder uses or threatens deadly force, property owner can now use deadly force (doctrine of self-defense)

Question 49

Law Enforcement Defenses

Answer 49

Law enforcement has authority to use deadly force to apprehend a fleeing felon if:
1) Reasonably believe that the felon poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily
harm to the officers or others; AND
2) The officers have to warn the fleeing felon when it is reasonable

Question 50

Defense of Necessity

Answer 50

Defendant chooses to commit a crime and defendant chooses the lesser offense for the greater good of society.
-greater good must be significant

I.e., Destroying someone’s property to prevent a fire from spreading

Question 51

Defense of Duress

Answer 51

1. Immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury;
2. A well grounded fear that the threat will be carried out; and
3. No reasonable opportunity to escape the threatened harm

Question 52

Defense of Voluntary Intoxication
(different types)

Answer 52

Defendant could not have formed the requisite mens rea due to alcohol consumption and therefore cannot be found guilty of the crime because the people failed to prove all the elements of the crime.

1.Pathological: Intoxication grossly excessive in degree, given the amount of the intoxicant, to which the actor does not know he is susceptible.
2.Innocent mistake: Innocent mistake about character of the substance taken.
3.Coerced: Intoxication involuntarily induced by reasons of duress or coercion.
4. Unexpected: Unexpectedly intoxicated due to the ingestion of a medically prescribed drug.

Question 53

Defense of Insanity
(MPC vs. M’Naghten)

Answer 53

M’Naghten (Cognitive only):
1. Did not know the nature and quality of what they were doing, or if he did know, he did not know what he was doing was wrong… so not guilty of crime

MPC (Cognitive AND Volitional):
1. When, as a result of mental disease or defect, the defendant lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct (cognitive),
or –
2. When, as a result of mental disease or defect, the defendant lacked substantial capacity to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law (volitional)
-“could not help himself”

MPC has more grounds for acquittal of crime based on insanity defenses, M’Naghten only has cognitive grounds.