Criminal Law / Procedure

Question 1

To convict a defendant of felony murder, the prosecution must prove that:

Answer 1

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.

Question 2

Solicitation

Answer 2

Asking another to commit a crime with intent that it be committed

Question 3

Attempt

Answer 3

Specific intent to commit a crime + an overt act beyond mere preparation.

Question 4

Conspiracy

Answer 4

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.

Question 5

Does conspiracy merge?

Answer 5

No, never.

Question 6

Which crimes can merge into the completed crimes?

Answer 6

Solicitation and attempt

But solicitation can also be a stand alone crime, while attempt cannot. ???

Question 7

Continuing Trespass

Answer 7

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.

Question 8

Robbery

Answer 8

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.)

Question 9

Extortion

Answer 9

Larceny + threat of future harm

Question 10

M’Naghten Insanity Test

Answer 10

D doesn’t know right from wrong or understand nature of actions

Question 11

Irresistible Impulse Test

Answer 11

D is unable to control actions or conform conduct to the law

Question 12

Durham Insanity Test

Answer 12

But for the mental illness, D would not have committed the act

Question 13

MPC Insanity Test

Answer 13

Combo of M’Naghten and Irresistible Impulse Test

Question 14

Are Miranda warnings required for Terry stops?

Answer 14

No, so no Miranda violation if not given.

Question 15

A person commits involuntary manslaughter when…

Answer 15

he causes a death by criminal negligence. However, some jurisdictions use a recklessness standard (see below).

Question 16

A person has a mens tea of criminal negligence when he:

Answer 16

(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.]

Question 17

A recklessness standard requires that a person….

Answer 17

consciously disregard a substantial and unjustifiable risk.

[Subjective and looks at what this D believed/thought.]

Question 18

Causation paragraph for a homicide

Answer 18

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.

Question 19

An accomplice is a person who:

Answer 19

(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).]

Question 20

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:

Answer 20

(i) intended to facilitate the commission of the crime; and

ii) acted with recklessness or negligence (whichever is required

Question 21

common law murder

Answer 21

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

Question 22

voluntary intoxication is a defense to

Answer 22

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.

Question 23

Under the Model Penal Code, a person acts “knowingly”

Answer 23

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.

Question 24

Under MPC, intent is equated with

Answer 24

purpose, which is defined as having a conscious objective to engage in certain conduct or cause a certain result.

Question 25

Criminal assault is either

Answer 25

(i) an attempt to commit a battery, or
(ii) the intentional creation, other than by mere words, of a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the victim of imminent bodily harm.

Question 26

The police may not search an automobile’s passenger compartment incident to any arrest of an occupant. Such a warrantless search is valid only if:

Answer 26

(i) the arrestee is unsecured and still may gain access to the interior of the automobile or
(ii) the police reasonably believe that the automobile contains evidence of the crime for which the occupant was arrested.

Question 27

The exigent circumstances doctrine, which permits warrantless entry, applies even when

Answer 27

lawful police action precipitates the exigency so long as the police do not create the exigency by violating the 4A.