Criminal Law General Deck Flashcards
Vagueness
Constitutional limitation on criminal statutes based on due process.
To satisfy this requirement, there must be 1) fair warning (a person of ordinary intelligence must be able to discern what is prohibited) and 2) no arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.
Substantive limitations on federal and state legislatures for criminal statutes
1) no ex post facto laws and 2) no bills of attainder
Standard of interpretation for criminal statutes
Strict, in favor of defendants. If two statutes address the same subject matter, the more specific statute will be applied, and more recent statutes control over older. New comprehensive codes are generally NOT retroactive
Merger under Common Law
If person engaged in conduct that is both a felony and a misdemeanor, can be CONVICTED only of the felony–misdemeanor merged into the felony
Merger under modern law
Generally no merger of crimes (mids. into felony) in American Law
BUT SOLICITATION AND ATTEMPT MERGE:
If person solicits another to commit a crime, may not be convicted of BOTH solicitation and the completed crime (if person does complete it).
If person completes crime after attempt, may not be convicted of BOTH attempt and completed crime.
NOTE EXCEPTION: Conspiracy DOES NOT MERGE with completed crime, aka may be charged with both conspiracy and crime
M.P.C. limits to convictions for inchoate crimes
D may not be convicted of more than one inchoate crime (attempt, conspiracy, solicitation) when conduct designed to culminate in commission of same offense, aka D who conspired to commit burglary and actually attempted burglary can’t be charged w both conspiracy and attempt
Double Jeopardy
Prohibits trial/conviction for lesser included offense if D has been “put in jeopardy” for greater offense
Multiple convictions for same transaction
Double Jeopardy not allowed; BUT court can impose multiple punishments at single trial for two/more statutorily defined offenses specifically intended by legislature to carry separate punishments EVEN IF offenses arise from same transaction and constitute the same crime (statutory exception to double jeopardy)
Jurisdiction over crime
State has jurisdiction over a crime if either the conduct or the result happened in that state.
additionally–if crime involved NEGLECT OF DUTY imposed by law of the state; or attempt/conspiracy outside the state PLUS an act IN the state, OR attempt/conspiracy in the state to commit an offense outside the state
ACT (actus reus)
An act can be any bodily movement, but the act must be a VOLUNTARY ACT–non-voluntary movements do not qualify for criminal liability
Involuntary acts/bodily movements that do NOT qualify for criminal liability
- conduct which is not the product of one’s own volition
- a reflexive or convulsive act (e.g. seizure)
- an act performed while unconscious or asleep
Omissions as Acts
5 circumstances when legal duty to act:
- By statute (e.g. req’d to file tax returns)
- By contract (e.g. nurse or lifeguard b/c employment contract, but ONLY when on duty)
- Because of relationship between parties (parent, spouse)
- Because you voluntarily assume duty of care then fail to adequately perform it (Shaq hypo, “I’ll save him”)
- Because your conduct created the peril
Common Law Mental States of a Crime
1) Specific Intent
2) Malice Crimes
3) General Intent Crimes
4) Strict Liability Crimes
Specific Intent Crimes
1) Solicitation
2) Conspiracy
3) Attempt
4) First Degree Murder
5) Assault
6) Larceny
7) Embezzlement
8) False Pretenses
9) Robbery
10) Burglary
11) Forgery
NOTE: Specific Intent crimes qualify for TWO additional defenses!
1) voluntary intoxication
2) unreasonable mistake of fact
Students Can Always Fake A Laugh Even For Ridiculous Bar Facts
Solicitation, Conspiracy, Attempt, First Degree Murder, Assault, Larceny, Embezzlement, False Pretenses, Robbery, Burglary, Forgery–the specific intent crimes.
Malice Crimes
1) Murder (CL or 2nd degree Murder)
2) Arson
these crimes require “reckless indifference” not specific intent
General Intent Crimes
1) Battery
2) Rape
3) Kidnapping
4) False Imprisonment
Strict Liability Crimes
1) Statutory Rape
2) Selling Liquor to minors
3) Bigamy
NOTE: when crime is in admin, regulatory or morality area and you don’t see any adverbs like “knowingly” “willfully” or “intentionally” then statute meant to apply regardless of intent and becomes crime of strict liability
Specific Intent Mens Rea
When crime requires not only doing an act, but doing so with specific intent or objective (i.e. assault–intent to commit a battery).
SUBJECTIVE TEST (what D was thinking at time)
Malice Mens Rea
a reckless disregard of an obvious or high risk that a particular harmful result will occur
SUBJECTIVE TEST (What D was thinking at the time)
General Intent mens rea
an awareness of factors constituting the crime (or for some circumstances, aware of a high likelihood that they will occur)
SUBJECTIVE TEST (what D was aware of/thinking of at the time)
juries MAY INFER general intent merely from the doing of an act
Strict Liability mens rea
NO INTENT is required for liability under SL crimes therefore any defense that negates intention DOES NOT APPLY (e.g. mistake of fact–thought V was older–is not available)
M.P.C. mental states
1) Purposely
2) Knowingly
3) Recklessly
4) Negligently
Purposely (MPC State of Mind)
One acts purposely when his CONSCIOUS OBJECT to engage in certain conduct or cause a certain result
SUBJECTIVE TEST (what D was thinking at the time)
Knowingly (MPC State of Mind)
Person acts knowingly when he is AWARE that his conduct will very likely cause the result
SUBJECTIVE TEST (what D was thinking at the time)
NOTE: this is not the long form definition, see study notes
Recklessly (MPC State of Mind)
Person acts recklessly when he CONSCIOUSLY DISREGARDS a SUBSTANTIAL AND UNJUSTIFIABLE risk that constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care
this is a SUBJECTIVE TEST (wrt ‘consciously disregards’–was D conscious of risk he ignored?) and OBJECTIVE TEST (wrt the unjustifiable risk)
Negligently (MPC State of Mind)
Person acts negligently when he fails to be aware of a SUBSTANTIAL AND UNJUSTIFIABLE RISK (if such failure is a substantial deviation from standard of care)
OBJECTIVE TEST (unlike torts, ask did D take a ‘very unreasonable’ risk
Transferred Intent
When intent (to kill, harm etc) transfers from intended victim to actual victim, so e.g. mean to kill A, but miss and kill B instead, intent to kill A transfers and guilty of FDM of B.
ALWAYS guilty of TWO crimes under transferred intent:
1) FDM of actual victim and 2) attempted murder of intended victim
