Criminal Law (MBE)

Question 1

Jurisdiction: Which States Have Jurisdiction Over a Crime

Answer 1

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.

Question 2

Merger: Common Law Rule

Answer 2

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.

Question 3

***Merger: Modern Law Rule

Answer 3

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.

Question 4

Classification of Crimes: Felony v. Misdemeanor

Answer 4

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

Misdemeanor - all other crimes

Question 5

Elements of a Crime

Answer 5

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.

Question 6

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

Answer 6

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.

Question 7

Elements of a Crime: Omission as an Act

Answer 7

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.

Question 8

Elements of a Crime: Circumstances Where a Legal Duty Exists

Answer 8

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.

Question 9

Common Law Mental State: Specific Intent - Proving Its Existence

Answer 9

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

Question 10

Common Law Mental State: Specific Intent - Crimes

Answer 10

(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.

Question 11

Common Law Mental State: Specific Intent - Additional Defenses

Answer 11

Additional defenses for specific intent crimes:

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

Question 12

Common Law Mental State: Malice + Crimes Associated

Answer 12

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.

Question 13

Common Law Mental State: General Intent

Answer 13

Catch all, crimes not with specific intent or malice.

Question 14

Common Law Mental State: Strict Liability

Answer 14

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.”

Question 15

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

Answer 15

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.

Question 16

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

Answer 16

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

Question 17

Doctrine of Transferred Intent + Defenses + Applicable Crimes

Answer 17

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.

Question 18

Doctrine of Transferred Intent - The Two Victims Issue

Answer 18

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.

Question 19

Concurrence of Mental Fault With Physical Act

Answer 19

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.

Question 20

Accomplice Liability: Common Law Parties To a Crime

Answer 20

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.

Question 21

Accomplice Liability: Modern Statutes (Principal v. Accomplice)

Answer 21

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.

Question 22

Accomplice Liability: Mental State - Dual Intent

Answer 22

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.

Question 23

Accomplice Liability: Mental State - Reckless Crimes

Answer 23

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

Question 24

Accomplice Liability: Providing Materials

Answer 24

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.

Question 25

Accomplice Liability: Scope

Answer 25

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

Question 26

Accomplice Liability: Scope - Exceptions - Members of Protected Class

Answer 26

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

Question 27

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

Answer 27

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).

Question 28

***Accomplice Liability: Scope - Exceptions - Withdrawal

Answer 28

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.

Question 29

Inchoate Offenses: Conspiracy Elements

Answer 29

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.

Question 30

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

Answer 30

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

Question 31

Inchoate Offenses: Conspiracy - Mental State

Answer 31

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.

Question 32

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

Answer 32

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

Question 33

Inchoate Offenses: Conspiracy - Point of Termination

Answer 33

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

Question 34

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

Answer 34

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.

Question 35

Inchoate Offenses: Conspiracy - Defenses - Factual Impossibility

Answer 35

Factual Impossibility IS NOT a defense to conspiracy.

Question 36

Inchoate Offenses: Conspiracy - Defenses - Withdrawl

Answer 36

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.

Question 37

Inchoate Offenses: Solicitation Elements

Answer 37

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

Question 38

Inchoate Offenses: Solicitation Elements - Defenses - Factual Impossibility

Answer 38

Factual impossibility IS NOT A DEFENSE

Question 39

Inchoate Offenses: Solicitation Elements - Defenses - Renunciation

Answer 39

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

Question 40

Inchoate Offenses: Attempt Elements

Answer 40

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

Question 41

Inchoate Offenses: Attempt - Overt Act

Answer 41

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.

Question 42

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

Answer 42

Common law - Abandonment is NOT A DEFENSE MPC - Abandonment MAY be a defense if it is 1) VOLUNTARY and 2) COMPLETELY ABANDONED.

Question 43

Inchoate Offenses: Attempt - Defenses - Legal Impossibility

Answer 43

Legal impossibility IS A DEFENSE.

Question 44

Inchoate Offenses: Attempt - Defenses - Factual Impossibility

Answer 44

Factual impossibility IS NOT A DEFENSE.

Question 45

Inchoate Offenses: Attempt - Merger

Answer 45

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

Question 46

Murder

Answer 46

The unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought.

Question 47

Homicide: Malice Aforethought - States of Mind

Answer 47

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

Question 48

Homicide: First Degree Murder

Answer 48

1) Deliberate and premeditated, or | 2) Killing committed during the commission of an ENUMERATED FELONY.

Question 49

Homicide: Second Degree Murder

Answer 49

Depraved heart (reckless disregard to a human life).

Question 50

Homicide: Felony Murder

Answer 50

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

Question 51

Homicide: Felony Murder - Felonies Included

Answer 51

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

Question 52

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

Answer 52

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

Question 53

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

Answer 53

The felony MUST BE DISTINCT from the killing itself

Question 54

Homicide: Felony Murder - Limitations on Liability - Foreseeability

Answer 54

Death MUST HAVE BEEN A FORESEEABLE RESULT of the felony.

Question 55

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

Answer 55

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.

Question 56

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

Answer 56

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.

Question 57

Homicide: Voluntary Manslaughter

Answer 57

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

Question 58

Homicide: Voluntary Manslaughter - Adequate Provocation Elements

Answer 58

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.

Question 59

Homicide: Imperfect Self-Defense Doctrine

Answer 59

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.

Question 60

Homicide: Involuntary Manslaughter

Answer 60

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).

Question 61

Homicide: Causation

Answer 61

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

Question 62

Homicide: Causation - Hastening Death + Simultaneous Acts

Answer 62

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.

Question 63

Homicide: Causation - Intervening Acts

Answer 63

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

Question 64

Battery + Intent

Answer 64

An unlawful force to another person resulting in BODILY HARM or OFFENSIVE TOUCHING. Battery is a GENERAL INTENT crime.

Question 65

Aggravated Battery

Answer 65

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.

Question 66

Assault

Answer 66

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

Question 67

Aggravated Assault

Answer 67

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.

Question 68

False Imprisonment + Alternative Routes

Answer 68

False imprisonment consists of the UNLAWFUL CONFINEMENT of a person WITHOUT CONSENT. No alternative routes are available.

Question 69

Kidnapping

Answer 69

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

Question 70

Aggravated Kidnapping

Answer 70

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

Question 71

Statutory Rape

Answer 71

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

Question 72

Statutory Rape - Mistake As To Age

Answer 72

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

Question 73

Larceny Elements

Answer 73

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

Question 74

Larceny: Insufficient Intent

Answer 74

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

Question 75

Larceny: Continuous Trespass

Answer 75

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

Question 76

Embezzlement Elements

Answer 76

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

Question 77

Embezzlement: Distinguished from Larceny

Answer 77

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.

Question 78

Embezzlement: Intent to Restore

Answer 78

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.

Question 79

Embezzlement: Claim of Right

Answer 79

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

Question 80

False Pretenses

Answer 80

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

Question 81

False Pretenses: Misrepresentation (Common Law v. MPC)

Answer 81

Common Law - false promises to do something IN THE FUTURE was NOT SUFFICIENT MPC - Any false pretense at any time is sufficient

Question 82

False Pretenses: Larceny by Trick Distinguished

Answer 82

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

Question 83

Robbery

Answer 83

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.

Question 84

Robbery: Distinguished from Larceny

Answer 84

Robbery requires use of FORCE or THREATS,

Question 85

Robbery: Presence Requirement Interpretation

Answer 85

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).

Question 86

Extortion (Common Law v. MPC)

Answer 86

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

Question 87

Extortion: Distinguish from Robbery

Answer 87

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

Question 88

Receipt of Stolen Property

Answer 88

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

Question 89

Receipt of Stolen Property: Timing of Stolen Property

Answer 89

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

Question 90

Forgery

Answer 90

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

Question 91

Forgery: Obtaining Another's Signature

Answer 91

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.

Question 92

Burglary

Answer 92

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

Question 93

Burglary: Breaking (Actual v. Constructive)

Answer 93

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.

Question 94

Burglary: Intent Timing

Answer 94

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

Question 95

Arson

Answer 95

The malicious burning of the dwelling of another.

Question 96

Arson: Intent

Answer 96

No specific intent required, reckless disregard will suffice.

Question 97

Arson: Destruction (Scorching v. Charring)

Answer 97

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

Question 98

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

Answer 98

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

Question 99

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

Answer 99

An IMPULSE that defendant CANNOT RESIST

Question 100

Defenses: Insanity - Durham (New Hampshire Test)

Answer 100

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

Question 101

Defenses: Insanity - MPC Test

Answer 101

Combination of M'Naghten and irresistible impulse

Question 102

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

Answer 102

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.

Question 103

Defenses: Insanity - Pretrial Psychiatric Examination

Answer 103

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

Question 104

Defenses: Voluntary Intoxication + When Can It Be A Defense

Answer 104

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.

Question 105

Defenses: Involuntary Intoxication + When Can It Be A Defense

Answer 105

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.

Question 106

Defenses: Infancy - Common Law Ages + Treatment

Answer 106

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.

Question 107

Defenses: Self-Defense - Nondeadly Force

Answer 107

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

Question 108

Defenses: Self-Defense - Deadly Force

Answer 108

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.

Question 109

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

Answer 109

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.

Question 110

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

Answer 110

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

Question 111

Defenses: Self-Defense - Defense of Others

Answer 111

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

Question 112

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

Answer 112

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.

Question 113

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

Answer 113

Deadly force MAY NEVER be used in defense of property.

Question 114

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

Answer 114

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.

Question 115

Defenses: Duress

Answer 115

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.

Question 116

Defenses: Necessity (Common Law v. MPC)

Answer 116

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

Question 117

Defenses: Necessity - Death

Answer 117

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

Question 118

Defenses: Necessity - Fault

Answer 118

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

Question 119

Defenses: Necessity - Distinguished from Duress

Answer 119

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

Question 120

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

Answer 120

Specific Intent - Mistake MAY BE UNREASONABLE Other Intent - Mistake MUST BE REASONABLE

Question 121

Defenses: Mistake of Law

Answer 121

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.

Question 122

Defenses: Entrapment

Answer 122

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

Question 123

Offenses Involving Judicial Procedure - Perjury

Answer 123

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

Question 124

Offenses Involving Judicial Procedure - Subornation of Perjury

Answer 124

Procuring or inducing another to commit perjury

Question 125

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

Answer 125

Common Law - the corrupt payment or receipt of anything of value for official action MPC - may be extended to NONPUBLIC OFFICIALS.

Question 126

Offenses Involving Judicial Procedure - Compounding a Car

Answer 126

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

Question 127

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

Answer 127

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