Final Crim Flashcards S1

Question 1

Nations

Answer 1

Knowledge

Lady hires teenage stripper. Wins cut she didn’t actually know, was just a high probability.

Question 2

“Concious disregard for human life”

Answer 2

Knoller

Recklessly

Reasonable in regard to the risk
(READ YOUR MIDTERM AGAIN)
Bought dangerous animal from nazis, ate a sheep, bit a person.

Question 3

Substantial and unjustifiable

Answer 3

Decina
Guy with seizures chooses to drive.

Knoller
Lady buys a dog that vet says is dangerous.

Nations
Lady hires a teenage stripper

“What is the upside”

Question 4

Proximate cause

Answer 4

Bailey
Guy gets into argument over if Patton was gay, and does it matter?
-does an epic prank toward the guy he is arguing with the cops. Tells the guy to pull his gun up, he’s coming.
Cops shoot a guy. Bailey loses. Is proximate cause cut its foreseeable.

Schaffer
Need proximate cause to find someone guilty. Proximate cause is a factual cause which ghe law will take cognizant.

Question 5

Duty

Answer 5

Shell
1. Statute
2. Status relationship
3. Assumed contractual duty
4. Voluntary aid + secluded them in a way to prevent others from aiding.

Voss: increased or created a risk of harm creates duty.

Gargus: when victim is wholly dependant on voluntary aid for basic necessities, no seclusion is required.

Question 6

Renunciation

Answer 6

Mcloskey

Guy plans and gets Hella close to getting out of prison. Is ruled as mere preparation. Concurring opinion states is best used when cases are close between “mere preperation” and “substantial step”

Question 7

No concious volition neccesary to be an accomplice

Answer 7

Mcvay
Captain has a DUTY to know boiler is safe.
1. Captain hires engineer, supervises his work on the boiler
2. Boiler explodes and kills hella passengers
3. Captain loses.

Question 8

Hoselton

Answer 8

Shared, but not identical intent is required for accomplice liability. We’re you a look out?

“You could say that, I just didn’t want to go down there.” is not enough to establish that he knew about his friends larceny from the boat.

Question 9

Callous disregard for human life

Independent intervening acts

Answer 9

Bailey
His plan to argue with and get the blind guy to have an encounter with the cops shows a Callous disregard for human life

Independent intervening acts cant break chain of causation if the are foreseeable

Mens rea of each individual + actus rea of the principal = the crime.

Greater mens rea of each individual + actus rea of the principal.

Question 10

Imminent

Answer 10

Norman 89’

Woman is gruesomely abused to hell for years. Kills her abuser in his sleep

Imminent =/= inevitable. It also =/= immediate and carries with it the idea that the act in question was a true final resort. Avoiding speculation about probability of future felonious assaults.

Question 11

Immediate

Answer 11

Contento-Pachon
Guy and his family is threatened by the cartel to smuggle drugs across the border. Says he’s always watched while doing it.

Not “imminent”. More like the sequence of events that culminate in the ultimate threat.” is imminent.Something more like inevitable.

Question 12

Aggressor (READ CASE AGAIN)

Answer 12

Peterson

Mere words do not make one an aggressor, though the fact that the confrontation did not take a dessly turn “until Peterson grabbed his weapon” meant he was the aggressor.

Question 13

Reasonable

Answer 13

Goetz

The word reasonable is meant to add objective considerations to an element including…

Physical movements
Knowledge about a person
Physical attributes
Prior experiences that could show a reasonable basis for beliefs.

Question 14

Encouragement, requested, commanded

Answer 14

V.T Presence + Friendship + prior knowledge is not enough to make accomplice

Question 15

Pinkerton

Answer 15

Conspiracy formed at one point can make one liable for the acts of another in furtherance of the conspiracy.

Question 16

Costa

Answer 16

Accomplice liability is not synoymous with conspiracy. They might be too drunk to conspire, while still aiding. Furthermore, it may be too spontaneous to count as full conspiracy.

Question 17

Toward the commission

Answer 17

Thousand

Pure legal impossibility = a mistake about the law itself. “It is generally undisputed” that pure legal impossibility will bar conviction.

Other legal impossibility is dumb.

Question 18

Pinkerton

Answer 18

Pinkerton loses!

Holds someone can be guilty of conspiracy even if they did not do or weren’t aware of any overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy.

Must be foreseeable

Question 19

Azim

Answer 19

Azim loses!
- Holds there are four factors to prove conspiracy

• Association with conspirators
• knowledge of the commission of the crime
• presence at the scene
• at times, participation

Question 20

Agreement

Answer 20

Moran

Conspiracy already formed + association with the conspirators + furthers conspiracy +knowedge of the consiracy = Conspiracy can be found.

Pinkerton liability defense

Question 21

Extreme Emotional Disturbance

Answer 21

Ott

Emotional disturbance when one loses the capacity to control themselves.

Would am ordinary person in that situation and those circumstances experience ED. Factors: Sex, Sexual preference, pregnancy, physical disability.

Question 22

Presumption that one intends

Answer 22

Natural and probable consequences of their actions. Very unclear in statute weather Conely applies.

Question 23

Premeditation and Deliberation

Answer 23

Same as “Conscious Objective” in our statute.

Midgett

Midgett intended merely to abuse his kid, not kill his kid when he delivered the blow to his chest.

Question 24

V.T

Answer 24

Presence, prior knowledge, and friendship do not make one an accomplice

Question 25

Linscott

Answer 25

Guy plans to rob a drug dealer.

His friend brings a shotgun to threaten

The friend kills the other guy

Linscott loses

Lesser mens rea, but same actus rea you can be punished as severely if the extra accomplice crime was foreseeable.

Question 26

Mandujuano

Answer 26

Mandujano Loses!

acting with the culpability otherwise required for the commission of the crime he is attempting, must take a substantial step toward execution of the crime and a failure to consummate the crime’

One cannot just say that the only act which is not ‘mere preperation’ is the one in which, if completed, one would what makes one culpable for the crime in question.