final crim rules Flashcards

1
Q

Homicide

A

The killing of a human being caused by another. (born alive and not yet dead)

Here the victim is dead – Here, Joe was killed.

[check list for homicide:1) is there malice?

2) if malice, is there proof for 1st degree?
3) if malice, is there proof to reduce to voluntary ms
4) if NO malice, is there proof for involuntary ms?
5) is there adequate causation?

Homicides are generally divided into murder and manslaughter.
Homicide is the actus reus for murder and manslaughter.

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

Murder

A

The KILLING of a HUMAN BEING CAUSED by ANOTHER (HOMICIDE) with MALICE AFORETHOUGHT.

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

Malice

A

a reckless disregard for an obvious risk - express(intentional) or implied(unintentional):

  • Express Malice
  • Intent to kill
  • Deadly Weapon Doctrine - Jury is to infer intent when a deadly weapon is used
  • don’t need injury – we want to anticipate injury
  • Implied Malice;
  • Wanton conduct/reckless indifference – depraved heart
    1. Act creates a high risk of death
    2. conscious disregard of the risks;
    3. Intentional Act;
    4. Defendant is aware of the risk
  • Felony murder.
  • Intent to inflict great bodily harm (GBH)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Felony Murder

intent to commit an INHERENTLY DANGEROUS FELONY is sufficient for MALICE AFORETHOUGHT.

A

For enumerated felonies (in the states 1st degree murder statute) the prosecution need not show premeditation and deliberation. D must have committed or attempted to commit the underlying felony. A substantive defense to the underlying felony is a defense to felony murder. The killing can be accidental.

Felony murder is subject to limits:
1) majority: death must have been a foreseeable result of an inherently dangerous felony…BAARK. looks objectively at the felony itself.

minority: only requires the felony be malum in se (dangerous acts). non-dangerous felonies committed in a dangerous manner. This is subjective and this considers the felons actions. The totality of the circumstances and dangerous to human life.
2) Merger: felony must be independent of the killing (independent of the act that caused the death). (i.e. felony such as manslaughter or aggravated battery will NOT qualify as the underlying felony). If it is a lesser included, then NO FMR.
3) during the commission of a felony: until the D has reached a place of temporary safety. (time, place and causal relation).

4) Co-Felons:
a. Vicarious liability (redline view): most jurisdictions. NOT liable for a co-felons death caused by resistance of the victim, by police or caused by a 3rd party.
b. proximate cause theory: most jurisdictions. felons liable for deaths of innocent victims caused by non-felons as the D put the events into motion.
c. Minority (agency theory): death must be caused by co-felon or agent.

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

Causation

A

Cause in fact: the death would not have occurred but-for the Ds conduct.

Proximate cause: death occurred in a manner not intended or anticipated breaks the chain. Intervening acts generally will shield the D from liability if the act is a mere coincidence or is outside the foreseeable sphere of risk created by the Ds act.

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

Second Degree Murder

A

Modern statutes divide murder into degrees. All murders are 2nd degree unless: Deliberate and premeditted killing. D decided to kill in a cool and dispassionate manner. D actually reflected on the idea of killing, even briefly.

Caselaw: consider Planning, Motive and Manner

Some states make killing by lying in wait, poison, or torture to be 1st degree murder.

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

First Degree Murder

A

To determine if a murder elevates to first degree there must be specific intent, plus premeditation and deliberation, or felony murder of enumerated felonies.

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

Voluntary Manslaughter

A

Voluntary manslaughter - MITIGATED MURDER – no malice aforethought. Mitigation may arise by adequate provocation or imperfect self-defense.

Some states recognize the imperfect self-defense doctrine (murder reduced to manslaughter even though: D was at fault in starting the altercation; or D unreasonably, but honestly believed in the necessity of responding with deadly force. (Remember: not all states require the victim be the provoker; and remember the public policy for voluntary manslaughter).

Rule:

1) adequate provocation – sudden and intense passion in the mind of an ordinary person such as to cause him to lose self-control;
(1) being subject to serious battery or a threat of deadly force; or
(2) discovering one’s spouse in bed with another person. (Fact favorite: man’s shoes/laughter).

2) D was in fact provoked (the D is responding to the provocation); Mere words are not enough. (But words with meaning may be adequate. “I just raped your daughter.”)
3) No cooling off period (for a reasonable person’s passions to cool);
4) D in fact did not cool off.

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

xxxx

A

xxxx

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

Involuntary Manslaughter

A

An unintentional homicide cause by criminal negligence, recklessness, or the commission of a malum in se crime which is sufficient to support a charge of murder under the felony murder rule(aka misdemeanor homicide or misdemeanor manslaughter). a malum in se offense is “naturally evil as adjudged by the sense of a civilized community,” whereas a malum prohibitum offense is wrong only because a statute makes it so.

1) criminal negligence (or MPC recklessness); Gross deviation from the “reasonable person” standard than for torts; OR

2) unlawful act manslaughter
a. misdemeanor manslaughter rulw = a killing + a misdemeanormost courts require the misdemeanor to be malum in se (an inherently wrongful act), or if malum prohibitum that the death be foreseeable or natural consequence of the act; or
b. during the commission of a felony NOT qualified for felony murder and foreseeable.

General intent crime (all crimes are specific except for…..)

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

Specific Intent Crimes

A

Intentional ACT + intent to produce a specific RESULT

Voluntary intoxication and any mistake of fact is a possible defense to a specific intent crime - negates the intent to cause the specific criminal result.

All crimes are specific intent EXCEPT for battery, rape, arson, involuntary manslaughter and murders which do not involve allegations of intent to kill.

TRANSFERRED INTENT DOCTRINE DOES NOT APPLY to specific intent crimes.

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

General Intent Crimes

A

Intentional ACT only

Voluntary intoxication is NEVER a defense to a general intent crime. And a mistake of fact(to be a defense) must be reasonable.

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

Battery

A

Intentional act that causes a harmful or offensive touching of another.

General intent crime (all crimes are specific except for…..)

Aggravated battery: with intent to do harm or murder, or when done with a deadly weapon(felony). A weapon is deadly when its purpose is to cause death or serious harm.

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

Assault

A

An Intentional act that causes a battery or causes an apprehension of a battery. A threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm.

Attempted battery is a substantial step towards the completion of a battery with specific intent to commit a battery

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

Rape

A

Penetration without effective consent. General intent crime.

Lack of consent can be shown by: Force; Threats; or Incapacity (mental, intoxication).

Fraud usually is not rape. Reasonable Mistake as to consent ís a valid defense. Voluntary intoxication is never a defense.

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

Statutory Rape

A

Penetration of a person, who by statute(strict liability), is in incapable of consenting.
Consent is irrelevant and a reasonable mistake(of fact) is not a defense.

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

False Imprsonment

A

the UNLAWFUL CONFINEMENT of a PERSON to a BOUNDED AREA, by FORCE or THREATS of FORCE, WITHOUT his VALID CONSENT.

General intent crime (all crimes are specific except for…..)

Confinement involves:

  • Freedom of movement is constrained in all directions;
  • victim must be aware of the confinement;
  • Force or Threats of Force; and
  • Appreciable amount of time.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Kidnapping

A

Unlawfully taking, moving or confining people against their will.

General intent crime (all crimes are specific except for…..)

Kidnapping is NOT one of the inherently dangerous felonies for the felony murder rule, but modernly is often an enumerated felony for first degree murder.

Aggravated Kidnapping either 1) For Ransom or 2) For the commission of other crimes.

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

xxxxx

A

xxxxx

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

Burglary

A

CL- TRESPASSORY BREAKING AND ENTERING, into the DWELLING of ANOTHER, in the NIGHTTIME with the SPECIFIC INTENT TO commit A FELONY.

Statutory/Modern - ENTRY(NO breaking to gain entry necessary) into ANY STRUCTURE at ANY TIME with the SPECIFIC INTENT TO COMMIT A CRIME.

At common law a constructive breaking was found when entry was made by trick, threat of violence or through the help of a conspirator. Common law definitions have been expanded by statute.
A trespassory entry is any entry made without consent, express or implied.

Courts are split as to whether there is a tresspassory entry when the defendant has express or implied consent to enter the structure for other purposes, and some state statutes classify any entry with intent to commit a felony or larceny as burglary.

Breaking to exit is not sufficient.
Modernly it is burglary when remaining/concealed in a structure with intent to commit an offense.

Modernly expands dwelling = any structure, yard, car, wall safe, closet - not trunk or box
Modernly it does not have to be a felony… intent to commit any theft.

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

Arson Malice*

A

CL - MALICIOUS BURNING of the DWELLING of ANOTHER.

Modernly (expanded by statute) arson has been extended to the malicious burning of almost any structure.
Modernly expanded to include damages caused by an explosion.

Malice(the mens rea – not intent) for arson requires an act with a wrongful intent to cause a burning, but it is a general intent crime, meaning that a mistake of fact is NOT a defense unless it is a reasonable mistake. (NO specific intent required) D need not intend to create a burning building, only that d intended to act under circumstances that pose a large risk of a burning. D has intent or knowledge that the structure would burn, or with reckless disregard of an obvious risk that the structure would burn.

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

Larceny

A

TRESPASSORY(force or stealth) TAKING and CARRYING AWAY of the PERSONAL PROPERTY OF ANOTHER with the SPECIFIC INTENT to PERMANENTLY DEPRIVE

Modernly larceny = theft. Title does not pass
Intent to permanently deprive: intent to create a substantial risk of loss or to sell goods back to owner.

Insufficient intent to permanently deprive: intent to borrow or taken because D honestly believes he is entitled to it as repayment of a debt.
Possibly sufficient intent to permanently deprive: intent to pay for property or intent to claim a reward – so take/hide the item in hopes of a reward.
Abandoned/lost property: abandoned by owner = no larceny. Lost by owner = larceny if finder can find identity of owner and there is intent necessary for larceny at time of taking. No larceny if finder takes without intent but later intends to steal/keep it.
Misdelivered property: larceny if at the time of accepting the property realizes mistake and intent required for larceny at time he accepts the delivery.
Continuing trespass: larceny if D takes property with wrongful state of mind – but no intent to steal – and later decides to keep/steal it.

23
Q

Larceny by Trick

A

TRESPASSORY(fraud) TAKING and CARRYING AWAY of the PERSONAL PROPERTY OF ANOTHER with the SPECIFIC INTENT to PERMANENTLY DEPRIVE where the TAKING was INDUCED by MISREPRESENTATIONS.
Fraud replaces trespassory. Modernly defined under theft. Title does not pass

24
Q

Embezzlement

A

WRONGFUL/FRAUDULENT CONVERSION of PROPERTY with the SPECIFIC INTENT to STEAL/DEFRAUD/PERMANENTLY DEPRIVE

Modernly = theft. Title does NOT pass.
Intends to restore exact property = NO embezzlement
Intends to restore similar property = embezzlement – even if it is money.

25
Q

False Pretenses

A

OBTAINING TITLE to the PROPERTY OFANOTHER by an INTENTIONAL FALSE STATEMENT of a PAST OR present FACT made with the SPECIFIC INTENT to DEFRAUD.

False representation can also occur when the wrongdoer says or does nothing.
Modernly = theft. Title DOES pass.

Misrepresentation must be more than mere puffery. Victim must rely on the misrepresentation. D must have known the statement to be false when he made it.

26
Q

Robbery

A

Trespassory taking and carrying away of personal property of another, with the specific intent to permanently deprive, from the person by use of force, threats or fear.

Aggravated robbery: aggravated form of larceny - robbery with use of a deadly weapon

27
Q

Receiving Stolen Property

A

RECEIVING POSSESSION or CONTROL of PROPERTY(conceals), KNOWN TO BE STOLEN, with the SPECIFIC INTENT to PERMANENTLY DEPRIVE.

Statutes often allow for sting operations. Here the item will not actually be stolen.

28
Q

Malicious Mischief

A

MALICIOUS DESTRUCTION or DAMAGE to the PROPERTY OF ANOTHER and the damage must diminish the property’s value.

29
Q

Forgery

A

the FALSE MAKING or MATERIAL ALTERING of a WRITING with the SPECIFIC INTENT TO DEFRAUD.

UTTERING A FORGED INSTRUMENT is the OFFERING AS GENUINE of a FORGED INSTRUMENT with the SPECIFIC INTENT TO DEFRAUD.

30
Q

Extortion

A

an ATTEMPT to OBTAIN SOMETHING OF VALUE by THREATS OF FORCE that LACK IMMEDIACY for ROBBERY with the SPECIFIC INTENT TO DEPRIVE.

blackmail

31
Q

Attempt Crimes

A

Attempt crimes consist of the SPECIFIC INTENT to commit the crime AND an OVERT ACT (A SUBSTANTIAL STEP/beyond mere preparation) in furtherance of that intent. (a mens rea + an actus reus) Falls short of completing the crime.

Does not include crimes that require recklessness or negligence – because those crimes are committed with no intent.

Attempt to commit a strict liability crime requires attempt to bring about the result.

D charged with completed crime may be guilty of either completed crime or attempt
D charged ONLY with attempt may NOT be guilty of the completed crime

Attempted Murder is the taking of a substantial step toward the completion of the murder with the specific intent to kill. (Note: murder is a malice crime.) attempted murder requires specific intent to kill, even though murder does NOT require specific intent to kill.

The TRANSFERRED INTENT DOCTRINE DOES NOT APPLY to specific intent crimes.

An ATTEMPT MERGES into the completed offense.

There is no attempted conspiracy. An attempted conspiracy is solicitation.

32
Q

xxxx

A

xxxxx

33
Q

Defense to Attempt Crimes

A

IMPOSSIBILITY
When defendant claims impossibility as a defense - take the FACTS as the DEFENDANT THOUGHT THEM T0 BE => is it a crime?
YES => FACTUAL IMPOSSÍBÍLITY => NO DEFENSE.
NO => LEGAL IMPOSSIBILITY => there IS a VALID DEFENSE.

ABANDONMENT
Majority: NO defense
Minority/MPC: withdrawal is a defense if fully voluntary (NOT due to difficulty of crime or fear of being caught) and complete abandonment (not just postponement).

34
Q

Solicitation

A

1) the counseling, inciting, or inducing of someone to commit a crime with the SPECIFÍC INTENT that the solicitee commit that crime. Specific intent crime: the D intends that the other person engage in the crime and the D must communicate with the goal of having the crime completed.
2) The offense is completed at the time the solicitation is made.
3) not necessary that the person solicited agree to commit the crime or even do anything in response.

Communication never received is NOT solicitation is some states.

SOLICITATION MERGES into the completed offense.

SEE DEFENSE TO ATTEMPT CRIMES ABOVE/WITHDRAWAL/IMPOSSIBILITY

35
Q

Agency Liability

A

RELATIONSHIP where ONE PERSON ACTS for ANOTHER.

LIABILITY can be APPORTIONED by the AMOUNT of INFLUENCE in the RELATIONSHIP (Are they a 1.) PRINCIPAL ; 2.) AGENT; 3.) CONSPIRATOR; or 4.) ACCOMPLICE?

36
Q

Conspiracy

A

Conspiracy is:

1) an agreement (express or can arise by implication – conduct and circumstances)
2) between two or more persons (MPC/modern allows unilateral)
3) to commit a crime with the SPECIFIC 1NTENT to enter into an agreement
4) and to commit that crime (the objective of the agreement. If a series of crimes – there is still only one conspiracy).
5) Majority: requires an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy where mere preparation IS usually enough).

Each conspirator is liable for crimes committed by other conspirators if 1) the crimes are in furtherance of the conspiracy; and 2) they are foreseeable. PINKERTON

Co-conspirators – need not know the identity or scope of co-conspirators participation:
Chain Link – people are in a line and deal directly with the people in front and back of them in line. (A NOT in conspiracy with C if As connection is ONLY with B).
Spoke Wheel - one person (center) deals with other conspirators (spokes) but they (the spokes) do not deal with each other. Spokes not conspirators with other spokes unless they have a community of interest between them.)

A successful solicitation is a conspiracy; and an unsuccessful solicitation is an attempted conspiracy which generally will merge.

37
Q

Limits to Conspiracy

A

UNILATERAL THEORY
Under the MODERN PENAL CODE defendant is GUILTY of CONSPIRACY if he BELIEVES he ENTERED INTO A CONSPIRACY.

WHARTON RULE: Under the Wharton Rule there is NO CONSPIRACY unless MORE PARTIES PARTICIPATE THAN are NECESSARY for the crime. (Le. adultery, dueling, bribery, drug dealing).

SOME STATES:D cannot be charged with conspiracy if D cannot be charged with substantive crime.

PINKERTON LIABILITY:Ends when conspiracy is over – obtains the criminal objective

Conspiracy DOES NOT MERGE into the completed offense.

Conspiracy ends when participants receive the expected benefits or conspiracy abandoned by all participants.

38
Q

Defense to Conspiracy

A

Factual IMPOSSIBILITY is NO DEFENSE.
WITHDRAWAL is NO DEFENSE to conspiracy, however, a person MAY LIMIT his LIABILITY for SUBSEQUENT ACTS of the OTHER MEMBERS of the CONSPIRACY if:
-The WITHDRAWAL is COMMUNÍCATED to all other CO-CONSPIRATORS;
There is AMPLE TIME to ABANDON the conspiracy; and
-If an ITEM is SUPPLIED an EFFORT must be made to RECOVER that item.

Arrest/incarceration is not a withdrawal

MPC: voluntary withdrawal if D thwarts the success of the conspiracy – such as informing the police.

39
Q

Accomplice Liability

A

Is independent of any conspiracy liability.

PRINCIPAL: CL- PRINCIPALS are ACTUALLY ENGAGED in the ACT or OMISSION WHEN a CRIME IS COMMITTED.

ACCESSORIES: CL - persons NOT ACTUALLY PRESENT when the CRIME IS COMITTED who have the SPECIFIC INTENT to give AID and ENCOURAGEMENT.

ACCOMPLICES: Modernly, an accomplice, with the SPECIFIC INTENT that the crime be committed, AIDS, COUNSELS or ENCOURAGES the PRINCIPAL BEFORE or DURING the COMMISSION of a CRIME. An accomplice is charged with the principal crime.

ACCESSORY AFTER THE FACT: a person who aids a person KNOWING that they have COMMITTED A FELONY with the SPECIFIC INTENT of helping them ESCAPE ARREST, TRIAL or PUNISHMENT.
An aider and abettor is liable for the natural and probable consequences of their act. Mere knowledge probably not enough – but procuring an illegal item or selling at a higher price may be sufficient for a stake in the venture. Not vicarious liability – dependent on the principal violating the law

LIMITS TO ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY: Inability to be a principal is NO defense to liability as an accomplice. Statute may exclude protected class from being an accomplice. Necessary parties excluded: buyer of drugs is NOT an accomplice to drug sale Withdrawal: voluntary before principal commits crime. Must repudiate encouragement and/or retrieve material provided and/or notify police or prevent the crime

40
Q

Defenses - Insanity

A

M’NAGHTEN RULE
As a result of MENTAL ILLNESS (a disease of the mind), the defendant 1) does not know the NATURE AND QUALITY of his act; or he 2) does not know what he is doing is WRONG.

IRRESISTIBLE IMPLUSE TEST
Because of mental illness the D was unable to control his actions or to conform his conduct to the law.

DURHAM TEST
Crime was the product of a mental disease or defect. Would not have been committed but for the disease. Broader than the two above. Too broad and was then limited by the MPC rule.

MPC RULE
As a result of MENTAL ILLNESS the defendant LACKS the SUBSTANTIAL CAPACITY to APPRECIATE the WRONGFULNESS of his conduct; or to CONFORM his CONDUCT to the REQUÍREMENTS of the LAW.

41
Q

Capacity

A

Juveniles under 7: presumed incapable of committing a crime

Ages 7 to 13: presumed capable of crime, rebuttable and stronger as age approached 13.

Ages 14 to 21: presumed to be the same as adults – capable of criminal responsibility

42
Q

XXXX

A

XXXX

43
Q

Diminished Capacity

A

Applies to specific intent crimes. Mitigates murder to voluntary manslaughter.

44
Q

Defenses - Intoxication

A

Intoxication may be raised as a defense whenever intoxication NEGATES one ELEMENT of the CRIME.
Any substance.

VOLUNTARY INTOXICATION
Voluntary intoxication is a defense to SPECIFIC INTENT CRIMES if that crime requires PURPOSE (SPECIFIC INTENT) or KNOWLEDGE, and the intoxication prevented the defendant formulating the specific intent or obtaining the knowledge.
NO defense for general intent crimes, strict liability crimes or crimes requiring malice, recklessness or negligence.
MAY reduce 1st degree to 2nd degree; but NOT 2nd degree to manslaughter.

INVOLUNTARY INTOXICATION
Involuntary Intoxication is ACCOMPLISHED by FORCE, FRAUD or MISTAKE as to the NATURE or CAPACITY to PRODUCE INTOXICATION and the results are applied to the SANITY TEST used in the PARTICULAR JURISDICTION.
Without knowledge; under direct duress imposed by another; pursuant to medical advice while unaware of the intoxicating effect
Involuntary intoxication may be treated as mental illness
D may claim BOTH intoxication AND insanity

45
Q

Defenses - Self Defense

A

For a defense of SELF-DEFENSE the FORCE ALLOWED can be NO MORE than is REASONABLY NECESSARY to PREVENT HARM, NOT to RETALIATE.
DEADLY FORCE
A person may use DEADLY if he:
- Is WITHOUT FAULT;
- Is CONFRONTED by an UNLAWFUL FORCE; and
- REASONABLY BELIEVES he is THREATENED with IMMINENT DEATH or GREAT BODILY INJURY.

If there is NO FAULT by DEFENDANT, NO RETREAT is REQUIRED (Minority rule: Retreat required except in castle)

If there is a NON-DEADLY ATTACK INITIATED by DEFENDANT, he MUST RETREAT except in castle (exception to exception: unless a fellow castle dweller).

If there is a DEADLY ATTACK or CRIME INITIATED by DEFENDAN T, he MUST WITHDRAW and COMMUNICATE and MUST RETREAT, unless in castle (exception to exception: unless a fellow castle dweller).

DEFENSE OF OTHERS
Can ONLY USE the SAME FORCE the person WOULD BE PRIVILEGED TO USE in their own self-defense.Majority: no special relationship

DEFENSE OF A DWELLING
A person may use NON-DEADLY FORCE in DEFENSE of DWELLING when it REASONABLY BELIEVED that such CONDUCT is NECESSARY to PREVENT or TBRM1NATE the UNLAWFUL ENTRY or ATTACK UPON the DWELLING by ANOTHER.
DEADLY FORCE is JUSTIFIED when the USE OF FORCE is NECESSARY to PREVENT the ENTRY into the DWELLING by a PERSON who INTENDS to COMMIT a FELONY THEREIN or to PREVENT a PERSONAL ATTACK on the PERSON or ANOTHER THEREIN.

DEFENSE OF OTHER PROPERTY
REASONABLE NON-DEADLY FORCE may be used to PREVENT TRESPASS to real property or MISAPPROPRIATION or DESTRUCTION of PERSONAL TANGIBLE PROPERTY.

46
Q

Defenses - to Effectuate Arrest

A

DEFENSES –TO EFFECTUATE AN ARREST

One is PRIVILEGED TO USE DEADLY FORCE to PREVENT the ESCAPE of a DANGEROUS FELON.

47
Q

Defenses - Crime Prevention

A

One is privileged to use DEADLY FORCE when it is NECESSARY to PREVENT the COMMISSION of an INHERENTLY DANGEROUS CRIME.

48
Q

Defenses - Mistake of Ignorance of Facts

A

IGNORANCE or MISTAKE OF FACT WILL BE a DEFENSE if it DEMONSTRATES that the defendant DID NOT HAVE the STATE OF MIND REQUIRED for the CRIME.

For SPECIFIC INTENT CRIMES the MISTAKE OF FACT may be EITHER REASONABLE or UNREASONABLE.

For MALICE or GENERAL INTENT CRIMES the MISTAKE OF FACT must be REASONABLE.
For STRICT LIABILITY CRIMES MISTAKE OF FACT is NO DEFENSE.

49
Q

Defenses - Mistake of Ignorance of Law

A

IGNORANCE of the LAW is NO EXCUSE. It is NOT a DEFENSE that the defendant BELIEVED his ACTIONS WOULD NOT BE a CRIME, even if that BELIEF was REASONABLE and BASED on the ADVICE of an ATTORNEY.

MISTAKE of the LAW MAY NEGATE INTENT: ignorance of some aspect of the elements of a crime rather than the existence of the crime. (Larceny of own property).

Exceptions: statute not published; reasonable reliance on statute or judicial decision; reasonable reliance on official interpretation or advice; reasonable reliance on advice of private counsel.

50
Q

Defenses - Consent

A

CONSENT NEVER is a DEFENSE to a FELONY.

51
Q

Defenses - Duress

A

a person COMMITS a CRIMINAL ACT under THREAT of IMMINENT INFLICTION of DEATH or SERIOUS BODILY INJURY to DEFENDANT or a THIRD PARTY. DURESS WILL NOT EXCUSE a HOMICIDE. Always involves a human threat. Does not extend to property.

52
Q

Defenses - Necessity

A

a person COMMITS a CRIMINAL ACT under THREAT of HARM by NATURAL FORCES and the HARM ANTICIPATED MUST EXCEED HARM CAUSED by DEFENDANT.
Objective test. Modernly necessity may arise from people, not only natural forces. Lesser of two evils.

53
Q

Defenses - Entrapment

A

Entrapment exists only if the criminal design ORIGINATED WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS and the defendant WAS NOT PREDISPOSED in any way to commit the crime.

Not entrapment if police merely provides the opportunity for the commission of the crime to D who is otherwise ready and willing to commit the crime.

Minority: looks at the nature of the police activity: would it reasonably cause an innocent person to commit the crime
Minority: police provides an essential material in entrapment.