Criminal Law & Procedure

Question 1

Elements of a Crime

Priority: High

Answer 1

In order to be guility of a crime, the prosecution must prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the defendant:
1. actus reus - committed the physical act of the crime
2. mens rea - had the required mental state
3. causation - was the proximate and actual cause of the crime’s effect
4. concurrence - had the required mental state and physical act at the same time

Question 2

Elements of a Crime: Actus Reus

Priority: Medium

Answer 2

The action of the defendant must have been voluntary. An ommission is not considered an actus reus unless:
1. legal duty to act
2. knoweldge of facts concerning duty to act
3. reasonably possible for defendant to act

Question 3

Elements of a Crime: Causation

Priority: High

Answer 3

The actus reus of the defendant must have actually and proximately caused the injury suffered from the crime. Acts are considered the actual cause when the injury would not have occured but for the defendant acting. Acts are considered the proximate cause when the injury was foreeable as a natural and probable considequence.

If a thrid party’s act superseeds the chain of causation, a defendant can no longer be held liable for the crime. A thrid party’s act is superseeding when it is independent of the defendant’s wrongful conduct, and was not forseeable. If the thrid party’s act is forseeable (i.e. medical treatment) then the defendant can still be held liable.

Question 4

Common Law: Elements of a Crime: Mens Rea

Priority: High

Answer 4

Under common law, there are four mental state categories:
1. Specific Intent - intent or desire to engage in codnuct or cause a certian result
2. General Intent - awareness of acting a certian way
3. Malice - reckless disregard of a known risk
4. Strict Liability - no mental state required

Question 5

MPC: Elements of a Crime: Mens Rea

Priority: High

Answer 5

Under the Model Penal Code, there are four mental states for crimes:
1. Purposefully - conscious objective to engage in conduct or cause a certian result
2. Knowingly - aware that his conduct is of a particular nature that will cause a certian result to occur
3. Recklessly - consioulsy disregards a unjustifiable risk and that conduct is a gross deviation from how a reasonable law-abiding person would act
4. Criminal Negligence - should have been aware of a substntial and unjustifiable risk and failure to precieve that risk was a gross deviation from how reasonably prudent person would act

Question 6

Common Law: Murder

Priority: High

Answer 6

The unlawful killing of a person with malice aforethought.

Malace aforethought is establish by showing:
1. an intent to kill;
2. intent to inflict great bodily injury;
3. recless disregard for human life; or
4. intent to commit an inherantly dangrous felony (felony murder rule)

• First Degree Murder: Willfull, deliberate, and premeditated
• Second Degree Murder: Non-first degree murder

Question 7

MPC: Murder

Priority: High

Answer 7

The killing of a person committed purposefully or recklessly under conditions manifesting an extreme indifference to the value of human life.

Under Felony Murder, the recklessness is presumed if the killing occured during the commission, or attempted commission, of a dangerous felony or escape.

Question 8

Common Law: Manslaughter

Priority: High

Answer 8

Voluntary: The intentional killing of a person without malace aforethought (with adequate provocation). Adequate provocation is determine if the defendat was provoked in a way that would be provcative to a reasonable person and there was not enough time to and did not actually cool off before the killing.

Involuntary: the unintentional killing of a person committed recklessly (consious disregard of an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily injury) or during the commission of a misdemeanor or non-dangerous felony.

Question 9

MPC: Manslaughter

Priority: High

Answer 9

The killing of a person committed recklessly or under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance for which there is a resonable explanation or excuse.

Question 10

Theft: Larceny

Priority: High

Answer 10

The tresspassory taking and carrying away of the personal property of another with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property.

Larceny by trick is obtaining possession of the personal property of another by trick or deception.

• The intent to permanently deprive must coinside with the act of taking.

Question 11

Theft: False Pretenses

Priority: High

Answer 11

Defendant obtains title to the personal property of another through a known false statement of material fact with intent to defraud.

• Differentiate from Larceny by Trick as actually acquiring title.

Question 12

Theft: Embezzlement

Priority: High

Answer 12

The faudlent or wrongful conversion of personal property of another by a person with lawful possession of that property.

Question 13

Recieving Stolen Property

Priority: High

Answer 13

A person who recieves stolen property, and knows it is stolen when he recieves it, with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property.

Question 14

Criminal Possession of Stolen Property

Priority: High

Answer 14

A person who possesses property that they know or reaosnably should know is stolen with the intent to benefit from that property or impede recovery from the owner.

Question 15

Robbery

Priority: High

Answer 15

The trespassory taking and carrying away of the personal properoty of another in their presence by the use of force or threat of immediate physical harm with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property.

Robbery is increased to “armed robbery” when a dangerous weapon is present.

Question 16

Common Law: Burglary

Priority: High

Answer 16

The breaking and entering of a dwelling of another at night for the purpose of committing a felony within.

Question 17

Insanity: M’Naugten Test

Priority: High

Answer 17

The defendant must prove by a perponderance of evidence that he suffered a mental disease or defect that resulted in the defendant being unable to know the wrongfulness of his conduct or understand the nature and quality of his acts.

• Wrong may be legally wrong or morally wrong, depending on state
• Passing test = acquittal.

Question 18

Insanity: MPC

Priority: Medium

Answer 18

The defendant must prove by a perponderance of evidence that he suffered a mental disease or defect that resulted in the defendant being unable to appreicate the ciminality of his conduct or conform his actions to the law.

• Passing test = acquittal.

Question 19

Self Defense or Defense of Others

Priority: High

Answer 19

dThe use of non-deadly force is jusified when the defendant reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger of being harmed, and the amount of forced used is proportional to the physcial harm threatened.

The use of deadly force is justified when the defendant kills another under a reasonable belief that he was in imminent danger of being killed or suffering great bodily injury and the use of deadly force was necessary to defend against that danger.

An aggressor may only use the self-defense justification if he is not the aggressor, withdawls from the alteracation and communicates such intent, or the other person suddenly escalates with deadly force and withdrawl is not possible.

An imperfect self-defense may mitigate murder to manslaughter when acting in good faith but the belief was unreasonable.

• Minority of jurisdictions have duty to retreat laws, when there is an opportunity to retreat or when it can be done safely
• No duty to retreat from own home.

Question 20

Arrests

Priority: High

Answer 20

An arrest in a public space is only proper when a police officer has probable cause of even a very minor crime:
1. trustworthy facts or knowledge
2. sufficient to warrant a reasonable person to believe
3. that the person committed a crime

An arrest within someone’s home is only proper when the police officer has obtained an arrest warrant, unless there are exigent circumstances or another exception exists.

• Police officer can obtain facts and knowledge from informant.

Question 21

Search & Seizure

Priority: High

Answer 21

A warrant is required for all searches and seizures by a government agent unless a valid exception applies.

Search warrants must include the probable cause (reliable information that it is likely that evidence of illegality will be found at a particular location), stated with particularity as to the place and items, and issued by a neutral magistrate.

Exceptions:
1. plain view
2. exigent circumstnaces
3. automobile
4. search incident to arrest
5. consent
6. inventory searches
7. stop and frisk
8. special need

Question 22

Warrant Exception: Plain View

Priority: High

Answer 22

The police may seize evidence observed in the plain view (with the 5 senses) from a place an officer is lawfully permitted to be and that are immediately apparent to be evidence of a crime or contraband.

Question 23

Confessions

Priority: High

Answer 23

For a confession made during a custodial interrogation to be admissable at trial, a defendant must voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waive their 5th amendment right against self-incrimination after their Miranda rights have been reasonably conveyed by the police:
1. right to remain silent
2. anything said can be used against them
3. right to talk to an attorney and have one present when they are questioned
4. if cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided

A defendant may assert their right to remain silent or counsel at any time during the interrogation. Police must scrupulously honor the right to remain silent and cannot quesiton about any crimes if the right to an attorney is invoked until the suspect has spoken to the attorney.

Confessions are only factual assertions that are communicative or testimonial, not expressive like crying.

• Custodial Interrogation = a person is in custody when reasonably believe they are not free to leave and are being interrogated when the police knew or should have known their conduct was likely to elicit an inciminating response.
• Public Safety = limited interrogations are allowed when reasonably prompted for public safety or the safety of the officer.
• Police may use coersive conduct, so long as the conduct and curcumstances do not overcome the defendant’s free will

Question 24

Exclusionary Rule

Priority: High

Answer 24

Evidence obtained in violation of the defendants 4th, 5th, or 6th amendment rights is inadmissable in a criminal case. Additionally, all derrivitive evidence is inadmissible under teh fruit of the posionous tree doctrine.

Police may use the evidence if they obtain an independent source, the discovery of that evidence was inevitable, the passage of time restores the defedant’s free will, or the police relied in good faith on a defective search warrant.

• Staements made in violation of the Miranda warnings may be used for impeachment of the defendant, but not in the Prosecutor’s case in chief.