Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

MBE Subjects > Criminal Law Flashcards > Flashcards

Criminal Law Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
MBE flashcards
1
Q

Define Actus Reus

A

A voluntary, conscious act that causes an unlawful result, OR
An omission when the defendant has a duty AND the ability to act.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Mens Rea-Purpose

A

Purpose means that the conscious objective of the act is to bring about the prohibited result.

For inchoate offenses, intent almost always refers to an act that is done purposefully.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Mens Rea-Knowledge

A

Knowledge means that the defendant knows, with almost absolute certainty, that the act will produce the prohibited result.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Mens Rea-Recklessness

A

Recklessness means that the defendant is aware that the conduct creates an unjustifiable risk, but ignores that risk and engages in the conduct anyway.

D just didn’t care.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Mens Rea-Criminal negligence

A

Criminal negligence creates an unjustifiable risk without subjective awareness that they are doing so, but a reasonable person would have been aware of the risk.

D did not realize, but the reasonable person would have.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Intent

A

Acts intentionally with purpose or knowledge

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Willful

A

Acts purposefully or knowingly, with moral turpitude.

Moral turpitude=ill or evil intent

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Specific Intent

A

Requires proof that the defendant intended to create a specifically prohibited harm; includes acts done purposefully or knowingly.

Nullified by an honest but unreasonable mistake of fact or by voluntary intoxication.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

General Intent

A

Only requires a desire to do the prohibited act; includes reckless and negligent states of mind.

Nullified by an honest and reasonable mistake of fact.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Strict Liability

A

Has no mens rea element. A voluntary act=guilt.

Mistake of fact is NEVER a defense. (e.g. statutory rape)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Transferred Intent

A

Occurs when the defendant intends to produce a criminal result against one party, but harms another instead. The intent transfers from the intended victim to the unintended victim.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Concurrence

A

Requires the prosecution to prove that the act that caused the criminal results was actuated (set in motion) by the requisite criminal state of mind.

Intent and action are in existence at the same time.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Actual Cause (List and Define the three tests)

A

But for: The result would not have occurred but for D’s conduct.

Substantial Factor: Multiple causes/parties are responsible for the result, but D’s act was a substantial factor in causing the criminal result.

Acceleration: The defendant’s conduct speeds up an inevitable death, even if briefly.

(remember there can be more than one actual cause!)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Proximate Cause

A

Proximate cause requires the resultant harm to be within the risk created by the defendant’s conduct in crimes involving criminal negligence or recklessness, or sufficiently similar to that intended in crimes requiring intent.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Will an foreseeable event cut off proximate cause/liability?

A

No, if the intervening event is foreseeable, it will NOT supersede.

Foreseeable-simple negligence or unknown special sensitivities/vulnerabilities of the victim. (egg shell plaintiff)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Will an unforeseeable event cut off proximate cause/liability?

A

If the intervening event is unforeseeable, it normally will supersede. It relieves D of responsibility and breaks the causal connection to the criminal result.

Unforeseeable-grossly negligent or reckless conduct.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Factors in determining foreseeability

A

Dependent or responsive interventions will NOT supersede, unless they are a totally abnormal response to the defendant’s act.

Independent/coincidental interventions WILL supersede the defendant’s responsibility, except when an independent intervening force was foreseeable.
Ex: A bank teller gets shot in the foot during a bank robbery and while being treated by the EMT a serial killer comes by and shoots him dead.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Define Murder

A

The unlawful killing of a human being plus malice.

Does not apply to fetuses and suicide does not count.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Common Law Year and a Day Rule

A

At common law a death that occurs after more than a year and a day is unforeseeable. (i.e. no proximate cause)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Define an Intent to Kill Murder

A

The defendant acts with the purpose to kill another or with knowledge that their conduct will kill another.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Deadly Weapons Doctrine

A

Falls under the Intent to Kill Murders.

Intent to kill is inferred from the defendant’s use of an instrument that is designed to kill or that is used in a manner likely to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm (e.g. swinging a bat at the victim’s head)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Intend to Cause Serious Bodily Harm Murder

A

The defendant acts with the conscious desire or substantial certainty that their act will result in the victim’s serious/grievous injury. Serious/grievous bodily harm=significant but not fatal injury.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Depraved-Heart Murder

A

Unintentional killing resulting from:
(1) Reckless or grossly negligent conduct,
(2) That creates an extreme risk to others, and
(3) Demonstrates a wanton indifference to human life and a conscious disregard of an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily injury.
Ex: Death caused by forcing someone to play Russian roulette or pushing a heavy flower pot off a fifth-story balcony onto the busy street below.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Felony Murder

A

Felony Murder is:
(1) An intentional or accidental killing,
(2) Proximately caused,
(3) During the commission or attempted commission,
(4) of a serious or inherently dangerous felony (BARRK)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Type of Felonies that Qualify for Felony Murder

A

(1) felonies listed in a statute, or
(2) felonies that are independent of the killing AND inherently dangerous.

If the primary purpose of the felony is to cause serious physical harm, the felony is not independent and fails the collateral felony test. Felonies that fail this test are: manslaughter, aggravated battery, aggravated assault, and mayhem.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

BARRK-Felony Murder

A

Burglary
Arson
Rape
Robbery
Kidnapping

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Define Abstract and Context Jurisdiction (Context-Felony Murder)

A

Abstract (majority)-dangerous to human life in all situations

Context (minority)-context of the felony is inherently dangerous

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Co-Felon Responsibility (Majority and C/L)

A

Modern majority agency-limits felony murder responsibility to a killing committed by a co-felon. (exempts felony murder responsibility for killings committed by non-felons)

Common Law-Felony murder responsibility attaches to all felons for any homicide committed during a felony. Only requires that the killing be proximately caused by the commission of the felony.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Exceptions to Co-Felon Liability

A

Non-violent felon: (Minority C/L) A co-felon is exempt from felony murder responsibility if they are NOT armed and did not participate/have knowledge of the other co-felon’s intent.

Deserving Victim: (Minority C/L) A co-felon is exempt from felony murder responsibility when anyone kills another co-felon.

Redline limitation: (Majority C/L) A co-felon is exempt from felony murder responsibility if the police or victim kills a co-felon.
Ex: A bank robber would not be charged with felony murder under the redline limitation if the police justifiably kill her accomplice.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

First-Degree Murder

A

C/L and most degree jurisdictions: Proof that the defendant’s decision to kill was done with both premeditation and deliberation (P&D) elevates second-degree to first-degree.

The defendant must consciously decide to kill, so they must actually intend to kill. Implied malice is not enough.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

Timeline for premeditation (C/L and Majority)

A

C/L: Can premeditate immediately.

Modern Majority: Some time is necessary to think, but it can be brief. Most jurisdictions require that the premeditation occurred after the intent to kill was formed, which means proof of some reflection.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

Deliberation (1st degree murder)

A

Deliberation means the defendant must make a deliberate choice to kill, which requires rational thought.

Voluntary intoxication or diminished capacity may prevent deliberation.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

Second Degree Murder

A

Any killing with malice, but without the additional element to prove first-degree murder.

In a jurisdiction that defines first-degree murder only as murder with premeditation and deliberation, any murder committed without the purpose to kill must be second degree murder.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

Voluntary Manslaughter

A

Heat of Passion
Voluntary Manslaughter is an intentional killing mitigated by adequate provocation OR other circumstances negating malice.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

Adequate Provocation (Voluntary Manslaughter)

A

(1) Objective Component: A provocation that would lead a reasonable person to lose self-control and fly into a sudden homicidal rage. (Mere words are not enough generally; the rage must be hot-a reasonable person would not have cooled down)

(2) Subjective Component: There must be a causal connection between the provocation and the killing. The defendant must actually have been provoked and must not have cooled off.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

Other Circumstances Negating Malice (Voluntary Manslaughter)

A

Mitigating circumstances can strip malice from intent to kill.
Ex: Diminished mental capacity (minority); imperfect self-defense (many states)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

Involuntary Manslaughter

A

An unintentional killing resulting from unjustified risk creation (recklessness or gross negligence) that is not sufficiently extreme to rise to the level of implied malice.

Ex: mishandling loaded weapons, driving dangerously, and shaking a baby

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

Misdemeanor-Manslaughter (majority)

A

An unintentional killing that occurs during the commission or attempted commission of a misdemeanor that is malum in se (inherently wrongful), OR of a felony that is not of the inherently dangerous type required for felony murder.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

Battery (general intent)

A

Battery is the intentional, reckless, or criminally negligent unlawful application of force to a victim.
Elements:
(1) The defendant unlawfully applies force (can be indirect-D throws rock at victim)
(2) The defendant does so knowingly, recklessly, or as a result of a criminally negligent state of mind, and
(3) No legal justification/defense

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
38
Q

Aggravated Battery (felony)

A

Simple battery can be elevated to aggravated battery when the defendant:
-causes serious bodily injury,
-uses a deadly weapon,
-a special category of victim (child, pregnant woman, or police officer)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
39
Q

Assault (specific intent) (C/L)

A

C/L: Attempted battery is the only way to commit criminal assault. Requires the intent to commit a battery, must intend to injure.

40
Q

Assault (specific intent) (Modern Majority)

A

A defendant commits criminal assault by attempting to commit battery or by intentionally causing the victim to fear an immediate battery.

41
Q

Assault-Failed Attempted Battery (Modern Majority)

A

Requires proof that the defendant intended to actually batter a victim, but failed.

So long as the defendant intended to commit, battery there is no defense that the victim was not aware of the assault or that the defendant was not presently able to commit the battery.

42
Q

Assault-Fear of Battery Assault (Modern Majority)

A

The defendant never intended to actually batter the victim, but instead intended to put the victim in fear of an immediate battery. The defendant must act with threatening conduct intended to cause reasonable apprehension of imminent harm to the victim.

Reasonable Apprehension: This requires more of an “expectation” than a “fear”-the victim must merely anticipate that battery will result in immediate bodily harm. Must be aware of the threat of harm.

43
Q

Aggravated Felony Assault

A

Can rise to the crime when:
-The defendant commits assault with a dangerous weapon.
-The defendant act with the intent to rape or murder.
-The victim is specially protected by statute.

44
Q

Mayhem (C/L and Majority)

A

C/L: Intent to maim or do bodily injury accompanied by an act that either: dismembers or disables the victim’s use of some body party useful in fighting.

Modern Majority: Statutes have expanded the scope of the crime to include permanent disfigurement.

The crime is aggravated battery in jurisdictions that do not recognize the crime of mayhem.

45
Q

False Imprisonment

A

It is the confinement of one person by another when it is intentional, against the law, and the victim is fully confined.

46
Q

Kidnapping

A

Kidnapping is committed when a person intentionally abducts another by means of force or threat of force.

Abduction (Modern Majority): It is usually sufficient that the victim is taken to another location or secretly confined where the person is not likely to be found.
The majority of jurisdictions requires SOME movement of the victim (asportation). Mere restraint is not enough.

47
Q

Rape (C/L)

A

Three elements:
(1) Carnal knowledge of a woman (vaginal penetration of the victim by the defendant) not his wife;
(2) Against her will (without consent); and
(3) By force or threat of force.

Resistance was required by the woman.

48
Q

Rape (Modern Majority)

A

Modification of the three elements at common law.
There is no implied resistance requirement. The focus is on objective evidence of lack of consent.

Penetration alone satisfies the “force” requirement.

If a reasonable person in the defendant’s situation would have known the victim was not consenting, that establishes the “against the will” and without consent element.

Mistake of fact can be a defense, however, the mistake must be both honest and reasonable.

49
Q

Larceny (C/L)

A

(1) Trespassory taking (occurs when a person, without consent or right, exercises dominion and control over another’s property)
(2) And carrying away
(3) Of tangible personal property
(4) of another
(5) With intent to permanently deprive or steal (specific intent)

50
Q

Continuing Trespass Doctrine (Larceny)

A

If a defendant takes property, but at the time intends the taking to be temporary and later decides to permanently deprive the owner of the property, the doctrine of continuing trespass establishes concurrence between the unlawful taking and the requisite intent to steal.

51
Q

Larceny-Mistake Rule

A

There is no intent if you think the property is yours, no matter how unreasonable.

52
Q

Larceny-Intent Rules

A

Intent is satisfied if the defendant recklessly exposes property to loss or deals with property in a manner involving substantial risk of loss.

If, at the time of taking, the defendant intends to return the property to the victim unconditionally and within a reasonable time, there is no intent (only applies if the defendant has the ability to return the property)

Returning property DOES NOT establish the absence of intent to steal. A defendant is guilty of larceny if they intended to permanently deprive at the time of the taking or at any time prior to returning the property.

Defendant can negate the intent element by:
-pawning the property, but with the intent to reacquire the pawned property and return it to the owner; or
-intending to replace or pay for the property at a later time if, for example, the property is easily replaceable (i.e. is not unique)

53
Q

Embezzlement (statutory crime)

A

It is the unlawful conversion of property already in the defendant’s possession with the intent to permanently deprive.

(1) Unlawful conversion (means transforming someone else’s property to your own)
(2) Of the tangible personal property of another;
(3) By one who is already in lawful possession;
(4) With the intent to permanently deprive or steal.

54
Q

Robbery

A

Needs all the elements of larceny plus two additional elements:
(1) The taking must be from the victim’s person or presence (area within their control)
(2) The taking occurs through force or threat of force that places the victim in actual fear at the time of the taking.

55
Q

Theft by False Pretenses

A

It is obtaining title to property owned by someone else through fraud.
(1) Fraud: False representation of present or past material fact by the defendant (puffery and statements of opinion does not count)
(2) Knows the representation is false
(3) Which causes the victim to pass title to his property to the defendant; and
(4) The defendant intends thereby to defraud.

56
Q

Larceny by Trick

A

Obtaining possession of property (not title) through fraud.
-This is a form of larceny where the defendant obtains possession of property by means of representation or promise that they know to be false at the time they take possession.
-Writing a fake check is larceny by trick, not false pretenses, because title does not pass until the check clears.

57
Q

Extortion

A

Obtaining the property of another by threat of future harm to the victim or their property.
(Blackmail)

58
Q

Receiving Stolen Property

A

(1) Receipt of stolen property, known to be stole, and
-Knowledge or constructive knowledge (look at the facts and circumstances)
(2) With the intent to permanently deprive the owner

59
Q

Forgery

A

Fraudulently making a false writing with apparent legal significance with the intent to make wrongful use of the forged document.
-The alteration must be material (change the meaning or effect of the document) to qualify (signing a false signature on a will)

60
Q

Burglary (C/L)

A

(1) A person breaks (requires some force)
(2) and enters (place any portion of the body inside the structure)
(3) into a dwelling house of another (home where people lived; occupied or not; includes structure on the curtilage)
(4) at night
(5) With intent to commit a felony or theft therein

61
Q

Burglary (Majority)

A

(1) A person breaks (relaxed to include slight enlargement of an opening; e.g. opening a door)
(2) and enters (person’s body or tool as long as used in to accomplish the felony or theft)
(3) into a structure (includes almost any structure, whether or not a dwelling)
(4) With intent to commit a felony or theft crime therein.

62
Q

Arson (C/L and Majority)

A

When a person maliciously burns property.
-Malice is established by actions that intentionally or recklessly cause property to burn.
-some portion of the structure was damaged.
C/L: the malicious burning of a dwelling of another
Modern: No requirement that the property be the dwelling of another.

63
Q

Solicitation (C/L and Majority)

A

Solicitation is the crime of trying to get someone else to commit your crime. D must intend the solicitee to perform criminal acts. Offense is complete once the solicitation is made. Merges into the offense-will be charged with attempt of the offense.
C/L: This was a misdemeanor and the crime solicited had to be a felony or breach of the peace.
Majority: The rule is now broader and is defined as requesting another to commit any offense.

64
Q

Attempt

A

Two elements:
(1) Specific intent or purpose to bring about a criminal result (doesn’t matter what the intent is for the actual crime); and
(2) A significant overt act in furtherance of that intent that proves the defendant went past the point of preparation and began perpetration.

65
Q

Jurisdictional Approaches to Determining Attempt

A

C/L: The defendant is required to perform the last act necessary to achieve the intended result.
MPC: An act is sufficient as long as it is a “substantial step” toward commission that indicates a purpose to complete the offense.
Proximity Test: Asks how close in time and physical distance the defendant was to the time and place the target offense was to be committed.
Equivocality Test: D’s conduct unequivocally indicates that he was going to complete the target offense.

66
Q

Defenses to Attempt

A

Abandonment:
C/L-no defense once the attempt is complete (moved from preparation to perpetration)
Minority/MPC-A voluntary and complete abandonment is a defense.

Legal Impossibility: The D is not guilty if they thought they were committing a crime, but it’s not actually a crime.

Factual Impossibility: If the D would have committed the offense had the facts been as they believed them to be, the defendant is GUILTY of attempt, even if it was factually impossible to complete the crime.

67
Q

Conspiracy

A

Conspiracy is the crime of planning to commit a crime with someone else.

A conspiracy requires an (1) agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime and (2) an overt act (committed by any conspirator) in furtherance of the conspiracy. There must be (3) intent to agree and (4) specific intent (purpose) to commit an unlawful act.

68
Q

Conspiracy-Overt Act Requirement (C/L and Majority)

A

C/L: Does not require an overt act; the agreement in itself is a crime

Majority: Requires an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. Beginning preparation to commit the crime is all that is required; it can be very trivial (unlike the requirement in attempt where the defendant must go beyond preparation to beginning perpetration.)

69
Q

Pinkerton Doctrine (Co-conspirator liability)

A

Majority: Each co-conspirator is liable for the crimes of all other co-conspirators where the crimes were both a (1) foreseeable outgrowth of the conspiracy AND (2) committed in furtherance of a conspiratorial goal.

70
Q

“Chain” Relationship

A

Where several crimes are committed under one large scheme in which each member explicitly or implicitly knows of the other parties’ participation and a community of interest exists, one single conspiracy results and all “links in the chain” are responsible for the crimes of each other.

71
Q

“Wheel and spoke” relationship

A

Where one common member enters into agreements to commit a series of crimes with others, multiple conspiracies exist and the tip of each “spoke” is connected to a common wheel, but not to other conspiracies.

72
Q

When a conspirator gets acquitted (C/L and MPC)

A

C/L: If there are only two conspirators, acquittal of one co-conspirator requires acquittal of the other, because two guilty parties are needed for a conspiracy conviction. If one person feigned agreement, then no conspiracy existed because there was not true meeting of the minds.

MPC: Permits conviction of a single party when the other conspiratory feigned agreement or is acquitted (a “unilateral conspiracy”)

73
Q

Wharton Rule

A

If the target offense requires two or more people as a necessary element they cannot be convicted of a conspiracy to commit the crime. But, if the agreement involves an additional person not essential to the definition of the crime, the “third-party exception” allows for all parties to be convicted of conspiracy.

74
Q

Defenses to Conspiracy

A

Withdrawal (C/L and MPC): Complete and voluntary withdrawal severs liability for future crimes, but is no defense to the conspiracy itself. Requires notice to all conspirators.

Renunciation (MPC only): Withdrawal and an affirmative act to thwart the conspiracy can eliminate responsibility for the conspiracy itself.

75
Q

Accomplice

A

Not an offense, but a way to link an accomplice to a crime committed by someone else. An accomplice is charged as if they were the principal (one who committed the crime).

Rule: The defendant is criminally responsible as an accomplice if:
(1) they do some act (or omission w/duty to act) that (2) facilitates the principal’s commission of the crime (or attempt), including encouragement with the intent of bringing about the commission of the crime.
Even a small amount of assistance is sufficient.

76
Q

Accomplice-Mens Rea

A

For purposes of accomplice liability, it must be shown that the defendant intended to commit the acts of assistance or encouragement and further intended to assist or encourage another to commit the crime charged.

Modern (minority): Accomplice liability may be established when a provider of goods or services has knowledge that he is assisting in the commission of a crime AND benefits (seller knows buyer will commit arson and sells him and explosive device)

77
Q

Accomplice-Scope

A

Accomplices are responsible for crimes that are purposefully facilitated AND all others that are reasonably foreseeable outgrowths of the primary crime. This is an objective test.

No defense that the accomplice did not expect the crimes to happen.

78
Q

Defenses to Accomplice

A

Renunciation: an accomplice may avoid accomplice liability, before the crime begins, if that accomplice:
(1) stopped assisting and encouraging the principal; and
(2) effectively communicated to the principal their intent to withdraw.

Minority: A minority of jurisdictions require the accomplice to neutralize their prior assistance or encouragement. However, these jurisdictions do not additionally require the accomplice to try to thwart the commission of the crime.

79
Q

Principal in the First Degree

A

The trigger puller–the perpetrator who performs the act with the requisite mental state.

80
Q

Principal in the Second Degree

A

One who aids or abets AND is present at the scene (e.g. getaway driver)

81
Q

Accessory before the Fact

A

One who aids or abets but is NOT present at the scene.

82
Q

Accessory after the fact

A

One who aids or abets the principal after the commission of the crime.
Requires proof:
(1) of a completed felony
(2) that the accessory knew of the commission of the felony; AND
(3) that the accessory personally gave aid to the felon to hinder their apprehension, conviction, or punishment.

83
Q

Two Categories of Defenses

A

Excuse Defenses: They “forgive” the defendant for committing an unjustified crime because of some disturbance of the defendant’s mental process, thus nullifying culpability for the crime (insanity, involuntary intoxication, and duress)

Justification Defenses: They establish that what would normally constitute unlawful was not unlawful under the particular facts of the case, and thus nullify the “reus” of the crime.

84
Q

Insanity Defense

A

If the defendant was legally insane at the time of his criminal act, no criminal responsibility will be imposed.
A defendant is presumed sane, the burden is on the D to prove otherwise.

Fed Law: D has the burden of proving insanity by clear and convincing evidence
Maj States: D has the burden of proving insanity by a preponderance of the evidence in state court.

85
Q

M’Naghten Test

A

The defendant will be relieved of criminal responsibility upon proof that at the time of commission:
The defendant suffered from a SEVERE MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT and as a result, was unable to know either: (1) the nature and quality of his act; OR (2) what he was doing was wrong. (Split jurisdiction on whether it is legal or moral wrong so cover both)

86
Q

Irresistible Impulse Test

A

The defendant is not guilty if they had a mental disease that kept them from controlling their conduct.

87
Q

MPC Test

A

The defendant is not responsible for their criminal conduct if, at the time of such conduct and as a result of a mental disease or defect, they lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality (wrongfulness) of their conduct or to conform their conduct to the law.

88
Q

Durham (or New Hampshire) Rule

A

The defendant is not criminally responsible if the unlawful act was the product of a mental disease/defect-it would not have been committed “but for” the disease/defect.

89
Q

Involuntary Intoxication

A

It is a defense to any crime requiring proof of general or specific intent, so long as it negates mens rea or it caused temporary insanity.

90
Q

Voluntary Intoxication

A

It may be a valid defense to a specific intent crime if it negates the requisite mental state (may negate purposeful or knowing mental state). It is NOT a defense to general intent crimes and won’t negate recklessness, negligence, or strict liability.

91
Q

Duress

A

Duress excuses criminal conduct where the defendant reasonably believes that the only way to avoid an unlawful threat of great bodily harm or imminent death is to engage in unlawful conduct.

Duress is not a defense to murder, except to excuse the underlying felony in felony murder.

92
Q

Self-Defense

A

Self-defense is an honest and reasonable judgment that is necessary to use force to defend against an unlawful imminent threat of bodily harm.
-D is a victim of an unlawful threat (not the initial aggressor)
-D is in imminent danger of unlawful bodily harm (would call police otherwise)
-D uses proportional force (no more than reasonably necessary) to prevent imminent harm.

93
Q

Homicidal Self-Defense

A

Deadly force is permitted only in response to an imminent threat of death or grievous bodily harm.

94
Q

Unclean Hands (C/L and Majority)

A

C/L: The first aggressor could regain the right to self-defense only by complete withdrawal perceived by the original victim.
Majority: The same rule as the common law, but the first aggressor will regain the right of self-defense if the original victim responds to the aggression with excessive force.

95
Q

Retreat Rule

A

C/L: The victim of unlawful violence had a duty to retreat before the use of deadly force. (eliminated in a lot of states)
In states that the retreat rule is retained, retreat is NOT required in the defendant’s own home, car, or office, and is not required if retreat is not foreseeable.

96
Q

Defense of a Third Person (Majority and Minority)

A

A defendant is justified when it is necessary to defend a third party who is facing an unlawful imminent threat of bodily harm. Deadly force is only justified when there is a threat of death or grievous bodily harm.

Majority: Looks at the reasonableness of the defendant’s belief that the third person was being unlawfully attacked. If the D was reasonable but mistaken, they can still claim defense of others.
Minority: D steps into the shoes of the victim attacked-if the third party was the first aggressor or failed to retreat when required, the defendant has no defense.

97
Q

Defense of Property

A

Reasonable non-deadly force is justified in defending one’s property from theft, destruction, or trespass where the defendant has a reasonable belief that their property is in immediate danger AND uses no greater force than necessary.

Deadly force never to defend just property.
Deadly force may be used where the defender reasonably believes that the threat to property involves an imminent threat to life.

98
Q

Necessity

A

Justifies the commission of what is normally a crime when:
-it is necessary to avoid an immediate threat of greater harm to persons or property;
-no reasonable alternative to breaking the law will avoid greater harm; and
-the defendant is not responsible for causing the harm.

C/L: Necessity is never a defense to murder, unless it is raised as a defense to the underlying felony for felony murder.
MPC: D can raise necessity for all charges, even homicide, which might result in acquittal, if the defendant kills one person to save multiple lives.

MBE Subjects (6 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions