Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

2022 Delaware Bar Exam > Criminal Law (MBE) > Flashcards

Criminal Law (MBE) Flashcards

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

Jurisdiction: Which States Have Jurisdiction Over a Crime

A

Multiple states CAN HAVE jurisdiction over a crime

Generally, a state has jurisdiction over a crime if: 1) ANY ACT constituting an element of an offense was committed in the state, 2) an act outside the state CAUSED A RESULT in the state, 3) the crime involved the neglect of a duty imposed by the state, 4) there was an attempt or conspiracy outside the state plus an act inside the state, or 5) there was an attempt or conspiracy inside the state to commit an offense outside the state.

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

Merger: Common Law Rule

A

If a person engaged in conduct constituting a felony and misdemeanor, they could be convicted ONLY OF THE FELONY, as the misdemeanor MERGES into the felony.

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

***Merger: Modern Law Rule

A

Under the modern rule, there IS NO MERGER OF CRIMES, EXCEPT THAT person may not be convicted of both SOLICITATION OR ATTEMPT and the completed crime. CONSPIRACY DOES NOT MERGE.

A defendant MAY NOT be convicted of more than one inchoate crime (attempt, conspiracy, or solicitation) for the same offense.

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

Classification of Crimes: Felony v. Misdemeanor

A

Felony - punishable by death or imprisonment for more than one year

Misdemeanor - all other crimes

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

Elements of a Crime

A

1) A physical act (actus rea).
2) A mental state (mens rea), and
3) A concurrence of the act and mental state.

A crime may also require proof of a result and causation.

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

Elements of a Crime: Physical Act + Examples of Acts with No Liability

A

A defendant must have either performed a VOLUNTARY physical act or failed to act under circumstances imposing a legal duty.

Examples of bodily movements that DO NOT QUALIFY for criminal liability: (i) conduct that is not the product of one’s own volition, (ii) a reflexive or convulsive act, or (iii) an act performed while unconscious or asleep.

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

Elements of a Crime: Omission as an Act

A

The failure to act gives rise to liability ONLY IF: (i) there is a LEGAL DUTY to act, (ii) the DEFENDANT HAS KNOWLEDGE of the facts giving rise to the duty to act, and (iii) it is REASONABLY POSSIBLE TO PERFORM the duty.

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

Elements of a Crime: Circumstances Where a Legal Duty Exists

A

1) By statute (e.g., must file taxes),
2) By contract (e.g., lifeguards at work),
3) By relationship (e.g., child/spouse or doctor/patient),
4) One voluntarily assumed care, and
5) One created the peril for the victim.

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

Common Law Mental State: Specific Intent - Proving Its Existence

A

The MANNER in which the crime was committed may provide circumstantial evidence of intent.

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

Common Law Mental State: Specific Intent - Crimes

A

(Students Can Always Fake A Laugh, Even For Ridiculous Bar Facts):

1) Solicitation,
2) Conspiracy,
3) Attempt,
4) First Degree Premeditated Murder,
5) Assault,
6) Larceny,
7) Embezzlement,
8) False Pretenses,
9) Robbery
10) Burglary, and
11) Forgery.

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

Common Law Mental State: Specific Intent - Additional Defenses

A

Additional defenses for specific intent crimes:

1) Voluntary intoxication, and
2) Unreasonable mistake of fact.

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

Common Law Mental State: Malice + Crimes Associated

A

The intent for malice crimes requires a RECKLESS DISREGARD OF AN OBVIOUS HIGH RISK OF HARM.

Crimes associated with malice: COMMON LAW MURDER (Second Degree) and ARSON.

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

Common Law Mental State: General Intent

A

Catch all, crimes not with specific intent or malice.

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

Common Law Mental State: Strict Liability

A

There is NO MENS REA for strict liability crimes, the defendant is guilty from committing the act, typically found in the areas of ADMINISTRATIVE, REGULATORY, or MORALITY area with no adverbs such as “knowingly,” “willfully,” or “intentionally.”

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

MPC Mental States: Purposely, Knowingly, Recklessly, and Negligently - Definitions + Object/Subjective Test

A

Purposely - CONSCIOUS OBJECTIVE to engage in certain conduct or cause certain result - SUBJECTIVE

Knowingly - AWARE THAT CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST and is NECESSARY or LIKELY to cause a particular result - SUBJECTIVE

Recklessly - CONSCIOUS DISREGARD to a SUBSTANTIAL and UNJUSTIFIABLE RISK - OBJECTIVE (as to risk) and SUBJECTIVE (as to awareness).

Negligently - FAILURE TO BE AWARE of a SUBSTANTIAL and UNJUSTIFIABLE RISK, where such failure is a SUBSTANTIAL DEVIATION from the standard of care - OBJECTIVE.

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

Enterprise Liability - Liability of Corporations and Association (Common Law v. MPC)

A

COMMON LAW - a corporation DOES NOT have capacity to commit crimes.

MPC - a corporation MAY be held liable if: (i) an agent of the corporation acting within the scope of their office or employment, or (ii) a corporate agent high enough in hierarchy to presume their acts reflect corporate policy

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

Doctrine of Transferred Intent + Defenses + Applicable Crimes

A

The defendant can be held liable when they intend the harm that is actually caused, but to a different victim or object.

Defenses and mitigating circumstances MAY ALSO BE TRANSFERRED.

This doctrine applies to homicide, battery, and arson, BUT NOT ATTEMPT.

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

Doctrine of Transferred Intent - The Two Victims Issue

A

On the Bar, look for TWO VICTIMS in transferred intent cases, one who actually is hurt and the other who was ATTEMPTED to be hurt.

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

Concurrence of Mental Fault With Physical Act

A

The defendant MUST HAVE the intent necessary for the crime AT THE TIME they committed the act constituting the crime, and the intent must have prompted the act.

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

Accomplice Liability: Common Law Parties To a Crime

A

At common law, parties to a crime included:

1) Principals in the FIRST DEGREE, persons who ACTUALLY engaged in the act
2) Principals in the SECOND DEGREE, persons who aided, advised, or encouraged the principal AND were present at the time
3) Accessories BEFORE the fact, persons who assisted or encouraged but were NOT PRESENT, and
4) Accessories AFTER the fact, persons who, with knowledge, assisted a principal to escape arrest or punishment.

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

Accomplice Liability: Modern Statutes (Principal v. Accomplice)

A

Principal - one who ACTUALLY ENGAGES in the act or omission that causes the criminal result

Accomplice - one who aids, advises, or encourages the principal in the commission of the crime charged.

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

Accomplice Liability: Mental State - Dual Intent

A

In order to be convicted as an accomplice, a person must have: (i) the INTENT TO ASSIST the principal in the commission of a crime, and (ii) the INTENT THAT THE PRINCIPAL commit the crime.

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

Accomplice Liability: Mental State - Reckless Crimes

A

When the substantive offense has recklessness or negligence as its mens rea, most jurisdictions would hold that the intent element is satisfied if the accomplice: (i) INTENDED TO FACILITATE the commission of the crime, and (ii) ACTED WITH RECKLESSNESS OR NEGLIGENCE

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

Accomplice Liability: Providing Materials

A

MERE KNOWLEDGE that a crime will result IS NOT ENOUGH for the accomplice liability where aid is given IN THE FORM OF THE SALE OF ORDINARY GOODS AT ORDINARY PRICES.

HOWEVER, selling ILLEGAL goods or HIGH PRICES because of the buyer’s purpose may constitute sufficient intent as to accomplice liability.

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

Accomplice Liability: Scope

A

An accomplice is responsible for the crimes they encouraged or aided AND any crime that was PROBABLE or FORESEEABLE.

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

Accomplice Liability: Scope - Exceptions - Members of Protected Class

A

Members of the class protected by a statute are EXCLUDED from accomplice liability

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

Accomplice Liability: Scope - Exceptions - Necessary Parties Not Provided For

A

A party necessary to the commission of a crime, by statutory definition, who is not provided for in the statute is EXCLUDED from accomplice liability (e.g., a crime for the sale of heroin requires a purchaser, but the purchaser cannot be an accomplice).

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

***Accomplice Liability: Scope - Exceptions - Withdrawal

A

A person who effectively withdraws from a crime BEFORE it is committed cannot be held guilty as an accomplice.

If encouraged the crime, the person must REPUPIATE encouragement.

If aided by providing assistance, the person must TRY TO NEUTRALIZE the assistance.

Notifying the police or taking other action to prevent the crime is also sufficient.

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

Inchoate Offenses: Conspiracy Elements

A

Conspiracy requires: (1) an AGREEMENT between two or more persons, (2) an INTENT to enter into the agreement, and (3) an INTENT by at least TWO PERSONS to ACHIEVE THE OBJECTIVE.

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

Inchoate Offenses: Conspiracy - Agreement Requirement (Common Law v. MPC)

A

Common Law - A conspiracy requires at least TWO people (e.g., if one person is a cop, the other cannot be convicted).

MPC - Only ONE party is needed for genuine criminal intent

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

Inchoate Offenses: Conspiracy - Mental State

A

Conspiracy is a SPECIFIC INTENT crime, the parties must have: (1) the INTENT to AGREE and, (2) the INTENT to achieve the objective of the conspiracy.

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

Inchoate Offenses: Conspiracy - Overt Act (Common Law v. MPC)

A

Common Law - no overt act required, the conspiracy was completed when the requisite intent was reached.

MPC - Requires an agreement PLUS OVERT ACT, which can be any little act in furtherance of the conspiracy

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

Inchoate Offenses: Conspiracy - Point of Termination

A

A conspiracy terminates UPON COMPLETION OF THE WRONGFUL OBJECTIVE. This is important when considering admissibility of co-conspirator statements.

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

Inchoate Offenses: Conspiracy - Liability for Co-Conspirator’s Crimes

A

A conspirator MAY be held liable for crimes committed by other conspirators if the crimes (1) were committed in FURTHERANCE of the objectives of the conspiracy and (2) were FORESEEABLE.

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

Inchoate Offenses: Conspiracy - Defenses - Factual Impossibility

A

Factual Impossibility IS NOT a defense to conspiracy.

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

Inchoate Offenses: Conspiracy - Defenses - Withdrawl

A

To withdraw, a conspirator MUST perform an affirmative act that NOTIFIES ALL MEMBERS of the conspiracy in time to ABANDON the plans.

Generally, WITHDRAWAL IS NOT A DEFENSE to conspiracy because the conspiracy i complete once the agreement is made, BUT it may be a defense to crimes committed in furtherance of the conspiracy.

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

Inchoate Offenses: Solicitation Elements

A

Asking, inciting, or urging another to commit a crime WITH THE INTENT the person commit the crime.

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

Inchoate Offenses: Solicitation Elements - Defenses - Factual Impossibility

A

Factual impossibility IS NOT A DEFENSE

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

Inchoate Offenses: Solicitation Elements - Defenses - Renunciation

A

MPC recognizes renunciation if the defendant PREVENTS the commission of the crime, such as persuading the person solicited NOT TO COMMIT THE CRIME.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
40
Q

Inchoate Offenses: Attempt Elements

A

Attempt requires: (1) SPECIFIC INTENT, and (2) an OVERT ACT in furtherance of the crime.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
41
Q

Inchoate Offenses: Attempt - Overt Act

A

The defendant must commit an act BEYOND MERE PREPARATION for the offense, generally tested by whether the individual took a SUBSTANTIAL STEP in a course of conduct in the commission of the crime.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
42
Q

Inchoate Offenses: Attempt - Defenses - Abandonment (Common Law v. MPC)

A

Common law - Abandonment is NOT A DEFENSE

MPC - Abandonment MAY be a defense if it is 1) VOLUNTARY and 2) COMPLETELY ABANDONED.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
43
Q

Inchoate Offenses: Attempt - Defenses - Legal Impossibility

A

Legal impossibility IS A DEFENSE.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
44
Q

Inchoate Offenses: Attempt - Defenses - Factual Impossibility

A

Factual impossibility IS NOT A DEFENSE.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
45
Q

Inchoate Offenses: Attempt - Merger

A

A defendant may only be found guilty of the completed crime OR an attempt, not both.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
46
Q

Murder

A

The unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
47
Q

Homicide: Malice Aforethought - States of Mind

A

1) Intent to kill,
2) Intent to inflict great bodily harm,
3) Reckless disregard to human life, and
4) Intent to commit a felony

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
48
Q

Homicide: First Degree Murder

A

1) Deliberate and premeditated, or

2) Killing committed during the commission of an ENUMERATED FELONY.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
49
Q

Homicide: Second Degree Murder

A

Depraved heart (reckless disregard to a human life).

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
50
Q

Homicide: Felony Murder

A

Any death, EVEN ACCIDENTAL, caused in the commission of, or in an attempt to commit, a FELONY.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
51
Q

Homicide: Felony Murder - Felonies Included

A

(BARRK): 1) Burglary, 2) Arson, 3) Rape, 4) Robbery, 5) Kidnapping

52
Q

Homicide: Felony Murder - Limitations on Liability - Defense to Felony

A

A defense that negates an underlying offense will also be a defense to the felony murder.

53
Q

Homicide: Felony Murder - Limitations on Liability - Distinct From Killing

A

The felony MUST BE DISTINCT from the killing itself

54
Q

Homicide: Felony Murder - Limitations on Liability - Foreseeability

A

Death MUST HAVE BEEN A FORESEEABLE RESULT of the felony.

55
Q

Homicide: Felony Murder - Limitations on Liability - Place of Safety

A

The death must have been caused BEFORE the defendant’s IMMEDIATE FLIGHT from the felony ended; once the felon has reached a place of “temporary safety,” subsequent deaths are not felony murder.

56
Q

Homicide: Felony Murder - Limitations on Liability - Co-Felon Death (Proximate Cause v. Agency Theory)

A

The defendant is NOT liable for felony murder when a co-felon is killed as a result of resistance from the felony victim or police.

Proximate cause theory find felons liable for the death caused by SOMEONE OTHER THAN A CO-FELON (e.g., police officer).

Under the Agency Theory, the killing MUST BE COMMITTED BY A FELON or their AGENT.

57
Q

Homicide: Voluntary Manslaughter

A

A killing that would be MURDER BUT FOR THE EXISTENCE OF ADEQUATE PROVOCATION.

58
Q

Homicide: Voluntary Manslaughter - Adequate Provocation Elements

A

Provocation is adequate only if:

1) It aroused SUDDEN AND INTENSE PASSION in an ORDINARY PERSON (e.g., catching wife cheating)
2) The defendant was PROVOKED,
3) There was NOT SUFFICIENT TIME to cool off, and
4) The defendant in fact DID NOT COOL OFF.

59
Q

Homicide: Imperfect Self-Defense Doctrine

A

Murder may be reduced to manslaughter even thought: (1) the DEFENDANT WAS AT FAULT in starting the altercation, or (2) the defendant UNREASONABLY BUT HONESTLY believed the necessity of responding with deadly force.

60
Q

Homicide: Involuntary Manslaughter

A

A killing is involuntary manslaughter if it was committed: (i) with CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE, or (ii) during the commission of AN UNLAWFUL ACT (misdemeanor or felony not within the felony murder list).

61
Q

Homicide: Causation

A

The defendant’s conduct must be BOTH the BUT-FOR and PROXIMATE CAUSE of the victim’s death

62
Q

Homicide: Causation - Hastening Death + Simultaneous Acts

A

An act that hastens the inevitable death will STILL be the legal cause of that death.

Simultaneous acts of two or more persons MAY be independently sufficient causes of a single result.

63
Q

Homicide: Causation - Intervening Acts

A

Generally, an intervening act shields the defendant from liability if the act is OUSTIDE THE FORESEEABE sphere of risk created by the defendant. HOWEVER, NEGLIGENT MEDICAL CARE and VICTIM’S REFUSAL OF MEDICAL TREATMENT are both foreseeable risks

64
Q

Battery + Intent

A

An unlawful force to another person resulting in BODILY HARM or OFFENSIVE TOUCHING.

Battery is a GENERAL INTENT crime.

65
Q

Aggravated Battery

A

An aggravated battery, generally punishable by felony, is: (1) battery WITH A DEADLY WEAPON, (2) battery resulting in SERIOUS BODILY HARM, and (3) battery of a CHILD, WOMAN, or POLICE OFFICER.

66
Q

Assault

A

Assault is EITHER:

1) An attempted battery, or
2) The intentional creation of a REASONABLE APPREHENSION OF IMMINENT BODILY HARM

67
Q

Aggravated Assault

A

Aggravated assault is an assault PLUS one of the following: (1) the use of a deadly or dangerous weapon, or (2) with the intent to rape, maim, or murder.

68
Q

False Imprisonment + Alternative Routes

A

False imprisonment consists of the UNLAWFUL CONFINEMENT of a person WITHOUT CONSENT.

No alternative routes are available.

69
Q

Kidnapping

A

Unlawful confinement of another person that involves: (1) some MOVEMENT of the victim, or (2) CONCEALMENT of the victim.

70
Q

Aggravated Kidnapping

A

Kidnapping for ransom, for the purpose of committing other crimes, for offensive purposes, and child stealing.

71
Q

Statutory Rape

A

Statutory rape is a strict liability crime, and therefore lack of consent is IRRELEVANT.

72
Q

Statutory Rape - Mistake As To Age

A

Mistake as to age IS NOT A DEFENSE, since it is a strict liability crime.

73
Q

Larceny Elements

A

Larceny consists of a taking and carrying away of tangible personal property of another by trespass with intent to permanently deprive.

74
Q

Larceny: Insufficient Intent

A

Where the defendant: 1) believes the property they are taking is THEIRS, 2) believes they HAVE A RIGHT to the property, or 3) they are intending only to BORROW the property

75
Q

Larceny: Continuous Trespass

A

If the defendant WRONGFULLY takes the property without intent to permanently deprive, then later decides to keep it, he is GUILTY of larceny.

76
Q

Embezzlement Elements

A

Embezzlement is the fraudulent conversion of personal property of another by a person in lawful possession of that property

77
Q

Embezzlement: Distinguished from Larceny

A

Embezzlement is where the defendant MISAPPROPRIATES property while it is in their RIGHTFUL POSSESSION, whereas in larceny the defendant never has property in their possession lawfully.

78
Q

Embezzlement: Intent to Restore

A

If the defendant intends to restore the EXACT property taken IT IS NOT EMBEZZLEMENT, however, if it intends to restore SIMILAR property, it IS EMBEZZLEMENT.

79
Q

Embezzlement: Claim of Right

A

As in larceny, embezzlement is NOT committed if the conversion is pursuant to a claim of right to the property.

80
Q

False Pretenses

A

Obtaining TITLE to personal property of anther by an INTENTIONAL FALSE STATEMENT of PAST or EXISTING fact with INTENT TO DEFRAUD.

81
Q

False Pretenses: Misrepresentation (Common Law v. MPC)

A

Common Law - false promises to do something IN THE FUTURE was NOT SUFFICIENT

MPC - Any false pretense at any time is sufficient

82
Q

False Pretenses: Larceny by Trick Distinguished

A

Larceny by trick deals with taking POSSESSION to property, while false pretenses deals with taking TITLE.

83
Q

Robbery

A

A taking of personal property of another from the other’s person presence by force or threat of force of IMMEDIATE death or physical injury (or family member or person in their presence) with intent to permanently deprive.

84
Q

Robbery: Distinguished from Larceny

A

Robbery requires use of FORCE or THREATS,

85
Q

Robbery: Presence Requirement Interpretation

A

The presence requirement is VERY BROAD (e.g., a farmer tied up in his barn is robbery where the robber went into the house to take property).

86
Q

Extortion (Common Law v. MPC)

A

Common law - corrupt collection of an unlawful fee BY AN OFFICER under color of office.

MPC - Obtaining property BY MEANS OF THREAT to do harm in the future or expose information

87
Q

Extortion: Distinguish from Robbery

A

Extortion is about FUTURE threats, while robbery is threat of IMMINENT bodily harm.

88
Q

Receipt of Stolen Property

A

Receiving POSSESSION AND CONTROL of STOLEN property KNOWN to have been obtained in a illegal manner by another person with INTENT TO PERMANENTLY DEPRIVE.

89
Q

Receipt of Stolen Property: Timing of Stolen Property

A

The property must be stolen AT THE TIME the defendant receives it.

90
Q

Forgery

A

The making or altering of writing WITH LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE so it is false with INTENT TO DEFRAUD.

91
Q

Forgery: Obtaining Another’s Signature

A

If the defendant fraudulently causes a third person to sign a document that THEY DON’T REALIZE they are signing, forgery has been committed. BUT, if the third persons realizes they are signing the document, NO FORGERY.

92
Q

Burglary

A

A breaking and entering of another persons house at night with intent to commit a felony therein.

93
Q

Burglary: Breaking (Actual v. Constructive)

A

Actual - Using ANY force to enter, HOWEVER if NO FORCE IS USED, there is no burglary.

Constructive - Using fraud or threat to enter.

Both are considered a breaking.

94
Q

Burglary: Intent Timing

A

The intent to commit the felony therein MUST EXIST AT THE TIM of the breaking and entering.

95
Q

Arson

A

The malicious burning of the dwelling of another.

96
Q

Arson: Intent

A

No specific intent required, reckless disregard will suffice.

97
Q

Arson: Destruction (Scorching v. Charring)

A

Destruction IS NOT required for arson. Scorching (blackening by smoke) is NOT SUFFICIENT, but charring IS SUFFICIENT.

98
Q

Defenses: Insanity - M’Naghten Rule (Right Wrong Test)

A

Defendant does NO KNOW RIGHT FROM WRONG or DOES NOT UNDERSTAND his actions

99
Q

Defenses: Insanity - Irresistible Impulse Test (Self Control Test)

A

An IMPULSE that defendant CANNOT RESIST

100
Q

Defenses: Insanity - Durham (New Hampshire Test)

A

BUT FOR the MENTAL ILLNESS, defendant would not have done the act

101
Q

Defenses: Insanity - MPC Test

A

Combination of M’Naghten and irresistible impulse

102
Q

Defenses: Insanity - Burden of Proof (Majority v. MPC)

A

Defendants are PRESUMED SANE, unless the defendant raises the issue.

In most states, the DEFENDANT MUST PROVE their insanity by preponderance of the evidence.

In MPC states, the PROSECUTION must prove the defendant was sane beyond a reasonable doubt.

103
Q

Defenses: Insanity - Pretrial Psychiatric Examination

A

The defendant MAY REFUSE a court-ordered psych exam, UNLESS the defendant raises the insanity issue.

104
Q

Defenses: Voluntary Intoxication + When Can It Be A Defense

A

Intoxication is voluntary if it is the result of the INTENTIONAL TAKING without duress of a substance KNOWN TO BE INTOXICATING. It is a defense for SPECIFIC INTENT CRIMES.

105
Q

Defenses: Involuntary Intoxication + When Can It Be A Defense

A

Results from taking substance WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE of its nature, under duress, or pursuant to medical advice while unaware of intoxicating effect. This is a DEFENSE TO ALL CRIMES.

106
Q

Defenses: Infancy - Common Law Ages + Treatment

A

1) Under Age 7 - NO CRIMINAL LIABILITY
2) Ages 7-14 - REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION child is unable to understand wrongfulness of acts.
3) Ag 14 and Older - Treated as an adult.

107
Q

Defenses: Self-Defense - Nondeadly Force

A

A person WITHOUT FAULT may use nondeadly force as the person REASONABLY BELIEVES NECESSARY to protect themselves from IMMINENT force.

108
Q

Defenses: Self-Defense - Deadly Force

A

A person may use deadly force if the person is: (1) WITHOUT FAULT, (2) confronted with “UNLAWFUL FORCE,” and (3) reasonably believes they are threatened with IMMINENT DEATH OR GREAT BODILY HARM.

109
Q

Defenses: Self-Defense - Retreat (Majority v. Minority)

A

Majority - there is NO DUTY to retreat.

Minority View - Requires retreat BEFORE using deadly force if the victim can safely do so, UNLESS: (i) the attack occurred in the victim’s home, (ii) the attack occurs while victim is making a lawful arrest, and (iii) the assailant is in the process of ROBBING the victim.

110
Q

Defenses: Self-Defense - Right of Aggressor to Use Self-Defense

A

The initial aggressor can only claim self-defense where: (i) they EFFECTIVELY WITHDRAW by communicating to the other side they do so, or (ii) the victim of the initial aggressor suddenly escalates a minor fight into a deadly altercation

111
Q

Defenses: Self-Defense - Defense of Others

A

A defendant has the right to defend others if they REASONABLY BELIEVE the person assisted has the LEGAL RIGHT to self-defense.

112
Q

Defenses: Self-Defense - Defense of Dwelling (Nondeadly v. Deadly Force)

A

Nondeadly - If one reasonably believes such conduct is necessary to prevent another’s unlawful entry into or attack upon their dwelling

Deadly - When the person reasonably believes the use of force is NECESSARY to prevent a PERSONAL ATTACK or to prevent an entry to commit a felony in the dwelling.

113
Q

Defenses: Self-Defense - Deadly Force for Defense of Property

A

Deadly force MAY NEVER be used in defense of property.

114
Q

Defenses: Self-Defense - Use of Force by Police Officers (Nondeadly v. Deadly)

A

Nondeadly - may be used if reasonably necessary to effectuate an arrest

Deadly - reasonable only if necessary to prevent a felon’s escape AND the office reasonably believes the felon threatens death or serious bodily harm.

115
Q

Defenses: Duress

A

Defense to crime, OTHER THAN INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE, that defendant REASONABLY BELIEVED another person would IMMINENTLY inflict death or great bodily harm if defendant did not commit crime.

116
Q

Defenses: Necessity (Common Law v. MPC)

A

Defendant REASONABLY BELEIVED the commission of crime was NECESSARY to avoid IMMINENT AND GREATER INJURY TO SOCIETY.

Common law - Must involve NATURAL FORCES

MPC - Can be artificial or natural

117
Q

Defenses: Necessity - Death

A

Causing the death of another is NEVER JUSTIFIED for a necessity defense

118
Q

Defenses: Necessity - Fault

A

The defense of necessity is NOT AVAILABLE if the defendant caused the situation

119
Q

Defenses: Necessity - Distinguished from Duress

A

Unlike necessity, duress ALWAYS involves a threat by a HUMAN.

120
Q

Defenses: Mistake of Fact - Reasonableness (Specific Intent v. Other Intent)

A

Specific Intent - Mistake MAY BE UNREASONABLE

Other Intent - Mistake MUST BE REASONABLE

121
Q

Defenses: Mistake of Law

A

Generally NOT A DEFENSE, unless: (i) the statute was unavailable, (ii) there was reasonable reliance on a judicial decision, or (iii) reasonable reliance on official interpretation.

122
Q

Defenses: Entrapment

A

Entrapment exists only if: 1) the CRIMINAL DESIGN ORIGNIATED WITH LAW ENFORCMENT, and 2) the defendant was NOT PREDISPOSED to commit the crime.

123
Q

Offenses Involving Judicial Procedure - Perjury

A

The INTENTIONAL taking of a false oath in regard to a MATERIAL MATTER

124
Q

Offenses Involving Judicial Procedure - Subornation of Perjury

A

Procuring or inducing another to commit perjury

125
Q

Offenses Involving Judicial Procedure - Bribery (Common Law v. MPC)

A

Common Law - the corrupt payment or receipt of anything of value for official action

MPC - may be extended to NONPUBLIC OFFICIALS.

126
Q

Offenses Involving Judicial Procedure - Compounding a Car

A

Compounding consists of agreeing, for valuable consideration, NOT TO PROSECUTE another for a felony (or any crime under MPC)

127
Q

Offenses Involving Judicial Procedure - Misprision of a Felon (Common Law v. MPC)

A

Common Law - the failure to disclose knowledge of the commission of a felony or to prevent the commission of a felony

MPC - no longer a crime

2022 Delaware Bar Exam (22 decks)

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