Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Crim Law I (1L) > Element Memorization > Flashcards

Element Memorization Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
Civil Procedure 1L flashcards MBE flashcards MPRE flashcards
1
Q

Actus reus?

A

voluntary act or omission that causes social harm

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

omissions create duty when…

A

statute imposes; status relationship; assumed contractual duty to another; voluntarily assumed the care of another and so secluded the helpless person; create risk of harm to another (can be any one of them)

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

Mens rea?

A

wrongful state of mind

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

almost always prove mens rea by what

A

circumstantial evidence

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

Criminal Battery

A

intentionally or knowingly without legal justification and by any means… causes bodily harm to an individual, or makes physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature with an individual

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

aggravated battery

A

intentionally or knowingly causing great bodily harm or permanent disability or disfigurement

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

No mens rea? (still need actus and causation)

A

strict liability

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

mistake of fact is a defense….

A

to a specific intent crime regardless of whether the mistake was unreasonable

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

Larceny

A

trespassory taking and carrying away of the personal property of another with the intent to steal and permanently deprive the rightful owner of their property

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

actual cause

A

but for test

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

proximate cause

A

determines who or what events among those that satisfy the but for standard should be held accountable for the resulting harm – be wary of possible intervening causes

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

intervening causes

A

if not reasonably foreseeable then superseding and break chain of liability

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

Homicide

A

unintentional and intentional (3) each

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

Mens rea IM1

A

premeditation and deliberation

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

mens rea IM2

A

intent (spontaneous)

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

mens rea Int manslaughter

A

heat of passion in response to adequate provocation (see rules of provocation)

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

“mens rea” UM1

A

felony murder 1

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

mens rea UM2

A

abandoned and malignant heart; conscious disregard; recklessness; depraved indifference

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

mens rea Unint manslaughter

A

negligence (lowest)

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

how many circumstances for determining premeditation and deliberation?

A

7

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

how many rules of provocation

A

4

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

what happens if rules of provocation satisfied?

A

murder mitigated to manslaughter

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

words alone adequate provocation?

A

NO — unless provoking party has the intent or ability to cause injury

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

Rules of provocation

A

There must have been adequate provocation … [must be calculated to inflame the passion of a reasonable man and cause him to act from passion rather than reason in the moment];
The killing must have been done in the heat of the passion;
Heat of passion must be sudden – the killing must have followed the provocation before there had been a reasonable opportunity for the passion to cool;
There must have been a causal connection between the provocation, the passion, and the fatal act

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

UM2 mens rea sub elements (1/2)

A

objective – very high degree of danger that society recognizes

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

UM2 mens rea sub elements (2/2)

A

subjective – consciously disregarding the danger that they are posing and engage in the conduct anyway while being aware of the danger

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

FM1 enumerated felonies

A

burglary and robbery

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

Burglary

A

entering a house; locked vehicle, with the intent to steal or commit a crime

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

Robbery

A

trespassory taking and carrying away of the personal property of another with the intent to steal and permanently deprive the rightful owner of their property with the use or threat of force

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

Unenumerated felony analysis for FM2 (one kind of UM2)

A

felony inherently dangerous?
if inherently dangerous, have its own felonious purpose?
– if both yes, most likely FM2

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

if inherently dangerous but not independent

A

merger doctrine – precludes FM2 charge – charged with underlying felony

32
Q

not inherently dangerous but cause death?

A

no FM2 but maybe unintentional manslaughter

33
Q

can you still be convicted of UM2 even if FM2 does not apply?

A

YES

34
Q

Self Defense Doctrine “doctrine of necessity”

A

– unlawful, immediate, actual or apparent threat of deadly force; AND
– defendant is objectively reasonable in believing that he was in imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm and the response was necessary to save himself

35
Q

defense of personal property

A

no deadly force unless you use moderate force and the victim uses or threatens deadly force as a response – in a trial it would be called self defense

36
Q

initial aggressor?

A

no self defense unless withdraw and make it known to adversary

37
Q

defense of others

A

parallels the third party’s right to self defense – see alter ego rule for other option

38
Q

defense of habitation

A

justifies killing an intruder who is assaulting the defendant’s home with intent of reaching its occupants and committing a felony against them
– homeowner has to reasonably believe that a felony will be committed

39
Q

law enforcement defenses

A

has authority to use deadly force to apprehend a fleeing felon if

– reasonably believe that felon poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officers or others and when feasible, the officers have to warn the felon of this right

40
Q

defense of necessity

A

similar to public necessity in torts

41
Q

duress defense

A

immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury; a well grounded fear that the threat will be carried out; and no reasonable opportunity to escape the threatened harm

42
Q

voluntary intoxication

A

mens rea argument; pathological, innocent mistake, coerced, unexpected

43
Q

M’Naghten rule

A

did not know the nature and quality of what they were doing, or if he did know, he did not know what he was doing was wrong

44
Q

MPC insanity

A

1) lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct; or
2) lacked substantial capacity to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law

45
Q

criminal attempts mens rea

A

specific intent (goal or purpose of completing the crime)

46
Q

attempts actus reus CL

A

dangerous proximity to success

47
Q

MPC actus reus

A

3 main elements + substantial step and 2 sub elements under substantial step (poison in coffee case) ‘can serve no legal purpose to the actor under the circumstances’

48
Q

abandon attempts under CL?

A

not when cross line of demarcation

49
Q

abandon attempts under MPC?

A

if only cross line of demarcation, yes but has to be voluntary

50
Q

cross line of completion?

A

no abandonment under CL or MPC

51
Q

Assault common law

A

reasonable fear; attempted battery

52
Q

Assault – MPC 211.1

A

– attempts to cause or purposely, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another; or
– negligently causes bodily injury to another with a deadly weapon; or
– attempts by physical menace to put another in fear of imminent serious bodily injury

53
Q

solicitation

A

attempt to form a conspiracy
– actus reus: ask, entice
– mens rea: intent to get the other to agree to commit the crime

54
Q

when is soliciation complete

A

upon asking

55
Q

conspiracy

A

agreement to commit the crime with the intent to commit the crime

56
Q

when is conspiracy complete

A

upon agreement

57
Q

pinkerton liability

A

“continuous conspiracy” – the only substantive crime that the passive co-conspirator can be charged with is a crime within the scope of the conspiracy

larceny – robbery (yes)
robbery – larceny (yes)

larceny – murder (NO)

58
Q

circumstantial evidence factors relevant to proving conspiracy

A

Association with alleged conspirators;
Knowledge of the commission of the crime;
Presence at the scene of the crime; and
Participation in the object of the conspiracy

59
Q

withdrawal from conspiracy

A

have to withdraw before an overt act is committed

60
Q

attempted robbery and cause death?

A

FM1

61
Q

med mal?

A

foreseeable

62
Q

accomplice liability

A

assist, aid, abet in the crime, while sharing the criminal intent of the primary criminal (1d principal)

63
Q

Linscott Acc. L

A

liability for primary and secondary crimes

64
Q

liability for primary crime is established…

A

by proof that the actor intended to promote or facilitate that crime

65
Q

liability for the secondary crime that may have been committed by the principal is established by showing that…

A

(1) the actor intended to promote the primary crime; and
(2) the commission of the secondary crime was a foreseeable consequence of the defendant’s participation in the primary crime

66
Q

foreseeable consequence?

A

an accessory is liable for any criminal act, which in the ordinary course of things was the natural or probable consequence of the crime that he advised or commanded, although such consequence may have not been intended by him

67
Q

THEFT – Expanded def of larceny (lee v. state)

A

missapropriation by a person who with the consent of the owner already had physical control over the property (defendant had consent to borrow something, but kept it)

68
Q

Theft by larceny CL

A

take possession of personal property owned by another by means of trespass with intent to steal, permanently depriving the rightful owner of the property and carries away the property

69
Q

when D intends to sell the property back to its owner

A

satisfies the mens rea of larceny even though at the time of the taking the actus reus was not concomitant with the requisite mens rea

70
Q

when the D intends to claim a reward for finding it

A

satisfies the mens rea of larceny even though at the time of the taking the actus reus was not concomitant with the requisite mens rea

71
Q

when the D intends to return the property to its owner for a refund

A

satisfies the mens rea of larceny even though at the time of the taking the actus reus was not concomitant with the requisite mens rea

72
Q

Grand theft by false pretenses

A

D made false pretense or representation; representation was made with the intent to defraud the owner of its property; and the owner was defrauded and parted with his property in reliance upon the representation

73
Q

what is a false pretense?

A

any word, act, symbol, token calculated and intended to deceive – may be either express or implied

74
Q

influence?

A

the false rep must have materially influenced the owner to part with his property but it need not be the sole inducing cause

75
Q

causation/reliance lacking when

A

complainant knew rep was false or not believe it to be true; not rely on it but investigated for self and relied on other advice; parted with property for other reasons or in reliance on other representations shown to not be false

Crim Law I (1L) (1 decks)

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