Criminal Law / Procedure Flashcards
To convict a defendant of felony murder, the prosecution must prove that:
the defendant committed or attempted to commit a proper underlying felony. Defendant need not necessarily complete the underlying felony; it can be sufficient that the death occurred during the commission of the felony.
Solicitation
Asking another to commit a crime with intent that it be committed
Attempt
Specific intent to commit a crime + an overt act beyond mere preparation.
Conspiracy
An agreement among multiple parties to carry out an illegal act and mere preparation will usually suffice.
Conspiracy consists of: (i) an agreement between two or more persons; (ii) an intent to enter into an agreement; and (iii) an intent to achieve the objective of the agreement. In addition, most states require an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy (although an act of mere preparation will suffice). Each conspirator is liable for the crimes of all other conspirators if such crimes were committed in furtherance of the objectives of the conspiracy and they were a natural and probable consequence of the conspiracy, i.e., foreseeable. However, if a conspirator has made a legally effective withdrawal from the conspiracy at the time of commission of such a crime, he will not be liable for that crime. Withdrawal requires an affirmative act that notifies all members of the conspiracy and is done in time for them to have the opportunity to abandon their plans. Withdrawal, however, will not be a defense to the conspiracy charge itself.
Does conspiracy merge?
No, never.
Which crimes can merge into the completed crimes?
Solicitation and attempt
But solicitation can also be a stand alone crime, while attempt cannot. ???
Continuing Trespass
Can allow an unlawful taking (with the intent to return the item) to ripen into larceny if the taker later develops the intent to permanently deprive.
But it only works if the original taking is wrongful.
Robbery
Larceny + force or immediate threat of force
(The taking must be from the victim’s person or presence and the person must give up the property bc of the force or threat of force.)
Extortion
Larceny + threat of future harm
M’Naghten Insanity Test
D doesn’t know right from wrong or understand nature of actions
Irresistible Impulse Test
D is unable to control actions or conform conduct to the law
Durham Insanity Test
But for the mental illness, D would not have committed the act
MPC Insanity Test
Combo of M’Naghten and Irresistible Impulse Test
Are Miranda warnings required for Terry stops?
No, so no Miranda violation if not given.
A person commits involuntary manslaughter when…
he causes a death by criminal negligence. However, some jurisdictions use a recklessness standard (see below).
A person has a mens tea of criminal negligence when he:
(i) fails to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk; and
(ii) this failure constitutes a substantial deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in the same situation.
[Objective and looks at what a reasonable D would have believed/thought.]
A recklessness standard requires that a person….
consciously disregard a substantial and unjustifiable risk.
[Subjective and looks at what this D believed/thought.]
Causation paragraph for a homicide
A defendant must be both the cause-in-fact and the proximate cause of the death.
A defendant’s conduct is the cause-in-face of the death if the death would not have occurred “but for” the defendant’s conduct.
A defendant is the proximate cause of a death if the death was the natural and probable consequence of his conduct, even if he did not anticipate the precise manner in which it would occur.
An intervening act can shield the defendant from liability if the act is a mere coincidence or is outside the foreseeable sphere of risk created by the defendant’s act.
An accomplice is a person who:
(i) with the intent to assist the principal and the intent that the principal commit the crime;
(ii) actually aids, counsels, or encourages the principal before or during the commission of the crime.
[There’s an exception for members of the class sought to be protected by the statute that has been violated. In most jurisdictions an aider and abettor can be convicted even if the principal cannot be convicted, and this was true even under the common law as to principals in the second degree (aiders and abettors).]
When the substantive offense has recklessness or negligence as its mens rea (e.g. involuntary manslaughter), most jurisdictions 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 (whichever is required
common law murder
is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought.
Malice aforethought exists if the defendant has any of the following states of mind:
(i) intent to kill; (ii) intent to inflict great bodily injury; (iii) reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life (i.e., an “abandoned and malignant” heart); or (iv) intent to commit a felony
voluntary intoxication is a defense to
specific intent crimes (a crime that requires purpose or knowledge), but NOT general intent crimes (including malice).
It is NO defense to crimes involving recklessness. Even though a defendant’s condition may in fact have precluded him from being consciously aware of the risk, one who is not consciously aware of a risk only because he was voluntarily intoxicated will be deemed to have acted recklessly with regard to the risk.
Under the Model Penal Code, a person acts “knowingly”
with respect to the nature of his conduct when he is aware that his conduct is of that nature or that certain circumstances exist. He acts knowingly with respect to the result of his conduct when he knows that his conduct will necessarily or very likely cause such a result.
Under MPC, intent is equated with
purpose, which is defined as having a conscious objective to engage in certain conduct or cause a certain result.
