Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Criminal Law I > Final Exam > Flashcards

Final Exam Flashcards

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

What is the castle doctrine?

A

Is an exception to the duty to retreat under self-defence justification.
Allows the use of force with regards to in-house attacks WITHOUT the need to retreat first.

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

Three instances of mistake of law as an excuse in US Law?

A

Hardly exculpates = Difficult!

  1. Reasonable reliance of government official misinfo.
  2. Criminal statutes that hinder fair notice (Lambert principle) = Stricter in MPC.
  3. Different-law mistake.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Pinkerton doctrine?

A

Any crime IN FURTHERANCE of a conspiracy (agreement) that is REASONABLY FORESEEABLE may lead to criminal liability (complicity) for any co-con.

Accomplice just for being a conspirator.

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

Traditional differences between necessity and duress? = Key distinguishing aspects between them!

A

Source: External circumstances vs. Wrongful threat of human.

Choice: Lesser harm vs. No choice.

Outcome: Lesser harm is not necessarily less in duress.

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

M’Naghten rule?

A

Widely used in the US to assess legal insanity excuse.
Second step of the two-step assessment (in the normative).
Narrow test compared to others.

Is a test that is ONLY focused on COGNITION (= Lack of knowledge):
1. FACTUAL: Did not know what he was doing.
2. MORAL: Did not know the wrongfulness of the act.

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

What are the three consequences of MOF under common law?

A
  1. Strict liability crimes = No exculpation because no mens rea.
  2. SI crimes = Exculpate when they touch upon the specific intent portion of the crime REGARDLESS of unreasonableness.
  3. GI crimes = Exculpates depending on REASONABLENESS of person under same circumstances:
    * If REASONABLE = Exculpate.
    * If UNREASONABLE = Negligence as if intention OR Negligence if provided.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What are the consequences of MOF under MPC and GCC S16?

A

MPC:
* Negatives mens rea required.
* If UNREASONABLE = Recklessness/Negligence.
* Not available if D would be guilty of a lesser offence.

GCC: Any mistake counts regardless of unreasonableness!
* If MOF, D lacks intention but still negligence.
* Not available if D would be guilty of a lesser offence.

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

Which MPC MOL criterion is stricter than common law?

A

Fair notice failure = Lambert principle.

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

What are the key criteria of MOL under GCC S17?

A

More flexible than US.
Key question: (UN)AVOIDABILITY of mistake = Whether the mistake was unavoidable?

Three scenarios:
1. Sheer ignorance.
2. Mistaken interpretation.
3. Subsequent mistake = Correct interpretation of the law at the time of the act, but becomes incorrect due to subsequent (unusual and unexpected) events.

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

A statute provides, “if any two or more persons conspire or agree together to do any illegal act, they shall be guilty of conspiracy.” This statute would most likely be classified as reflecting a unilateral theory of conspiracy.

T/F?

A

FALSE.

The unilateral theory of conspiracy is under the MPC, where:
* Suffices for 1 person to agree.
* Individual behaviour is enough.
* Position of co-con. irrelevant!

The example provided is regarding the bilateral theory of conspiracy under common law, where:
* 2+ people needed.
* Proof of agreement + Intent for each co-con.
* Lack of proof of 1 co-con. extends to rest of co-con.

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

Which of the following terms does not refer to an inchoate offence?
Attempt
Complicity
Conspiracy
Solicitation

A

Complicity because it depends on the completion of the offence unlike the others.

Exception: Pinkerton doctrine = Accomplice by being a co-con.

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

Definition + rationale of inchoate offences?

A

Crimes of beginning-but-not-finishing = Crime not consummated.

Rationales: Crime prevention, neutralisation of dangerousness.

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

Key distinguishing aspect of approaches to inchoate offences between US and Germany?

A

Germany:

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

Difference between complete + incomplete attempts?

A

Attempt needs the completion of essential steps thus we can differentiate:
* COMPLETE ATT. = Done everything to achieve goal except for the last step.
* INCOMPLETE ATT. = Not taken all steps yet, just some. OJO: Preparatory acts not punished as a rule under attempt!

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

Compare the mens rea for attempt between US + Germany?

A

US: Is a type of SI crime.
Germany: Only in any type of dolus (intent) crimes.

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

Dividing line between preparatory acts and incomplete attempts across Common Law, MPC + GCC?

A

Common law + GCC: Similar approach and look at future = Yet to be done?

Common law tests:
* LAST ACT TEST = All steps done except for last.
* PHYSICAL PROXIMITY TEST = Act proximate to completion.
* UNEQUIVOCALLY TEST = Result is obv.

MPC: Looks at past = What has been done? = Focus on D’s dangerousness.
* PURPOSE/BELIEF to commit target off.
* Conduct must = SUBSTANTIAL STEPS towards commission of off.

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

What is renunciation (MPC) / withdrawal / abandonment (GCC) and its rationale?

A

An affirmative defence leading to acquittal/mitigation.

Rationale: Rebuttal of dangerousness + incentive to desist.

Voluntarily abandons attempt!

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

What are the three possible scenarios for renunciation (MPC) / withdrawal / abandonment (GCC)?

A
  1. FAILED: External forces intervene = Dont count!
  2. INCOMPLETE: Mere desistance is enough
  3. COMPLETE: Counter-action needed!!!
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

What is an impossible attempt and are they a defense?

A

= Mistaken assessment of the circumstances concerning either the object or means of the crime.

Can be:
* FACTUAL = Not a defence in US. Mitigation in Germany.
* LEGAL = Only a defence when absolute (pure).

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

Compare the punishment of impossible attempt under the GCC + MPC?

A

Germany:
* “Grossly ignorant of the fact”.
* Leads to penalty or mitigation.

MPC: Does not include impossible attempt.

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

What is solicitation and what are its elements?

A

Act of asking, inducing, advising, ordering or otherwise encouraging someone else to commit a crime.

Actus reus: Words or conduct of inducement. OJO: Must be received, if not = Attempt.

Mens rea: Specific intent to consummate solicited crime.

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

What is the difference between solicitation + instrumentalisation of an innocent?

A

Solicitation = Solicitator is using a WILLING or coerced individual.

Instrumentalisation = Solicitator fraudulently LEADS/MANIPULATES someone who is NOT KNOWINGLY participating in the crime to commit an offence = D uses X as a means.

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

What is solicitation under GCC?

A

Not a separate inchoate off. = Type of attempt in participation.

Punishment may be mitigated.

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

Compare the punishments of solicitation under GCC + MPC?

A

GCC: Type of attempt = But may be mitigated.

MPC: Same as target offence. If renunciation = Attempted solicitation.

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

What is conspiracy?

A

An AGREEMENT between 2+ people to accomplish an ILLEGAL OBJECTIVE, coupled with one or more OVERT ACTS in FURTHERANCE of the illegal purpose.

Requires the community of intent.

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

Does conspiracy exist in Germany?

A

NO.

Harm principle = More is needed than just agreement.

= Attempted participation.

27
Q

What are the requirements for conspiracy in Common law + MPC?

A
  1. Actus reus:
    Common law = Only AGREEMENT needed.
    MPC + Some J:
    * More serious crimes = AGREEMENT enough.
    * Less serious crimes = AGREEMENT + OVERT ACT.

Proof of OVERT ACT of 1 co-con. = Prosecute all co-con.

  1. Mens rea:
    * Common law: SI = Intent to AGREE + intent to achieve SPECIFIC RESULT.
    * MPC: AGREE + Purpose of FACILITATING commission
28
Q

How is conspiracy punished in Common law + MPC?

A

MPC = Same as target offence.
Common law = Less than target offence.

29
Q

What is the derivative liability principle in complicity?

A

Accomplice liability is DERIVED from someone else’s actions with whom the accomplice has associated themselves with.

30
Q

Is complicity a separate + independent offence, and how is it punished?

A

NO.

As a general, punished with he “same fate” as principle = Diff. degrees.

31
Q

What are the elements of complicity in the US?

A
  1. Actus reus = Assistance in commission of offence.
    * Encouragement/presence not sufficient unless LEGAL DUTY TO ACT.
    * CAUSATION irrelevant!
  2. Mens rea = SI = Accomplice intention + intent that PP commits the crime.
    * OJO: In some J: GI is enough (knowingly) = Criminal facilitation.
  3. Natural + probable consequence doctrine = Some J only.
    accomplice to additional crimes if the additional crimes are foreseeable
32
Q

Explain the Pinkerton doctrine?

A

Any crime IN FURTHERANCE of a conspiracy (agreement) that is REASONABLY FORESEEABLE may lead to criminal liability (complicity) for any co-con.

Qualifies responsibility of co-con. as ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY without the need to satisfy its requisites.

33
Q

Main difference between conspiracy + complicity?

A

Conspiracy = Targets the AGREEMENT.

Complicity = Targets the FACTUAL ASSISTANCE.

34
Q

What is psychological assistance?

A

An agreement to aid = Complicity + conspiracy may overlap.

35
Q

What is the dividing line between offences agreed upon (conspiracy) and those actually committed?

A

Conspiracy = Targets agreement.
Complicity = Targets factual assistance.

If they are the SAME:
* MPC = MERGED conspiracy + complicity.
* CL = Conspiracy ADDS onto complicity.

If they are ADDITIONAL:
* MPC = No CL.
* CL = Under Pinkerton doctrine = Liable.

If ADDITIONAL CRIMES AGREED BUT NOT COMMITTED = Only conspiraacy!

36
Q

What are the exceptions to the derivability rule of complicity?

A

If P is acquitted on:

  1. PROCEDURAL GROUNDS = Only if sufficient evidence = Accomplice liability.
  2. JUSTIFICATIONS = Extend to accomplice = Turn wrong act into right one.
  3. EXCUSE = Do not extend! = Wrong act but P is cannot be blamed = Still wrong!
37
Q

What is the definition of crime under tripartite + bipartite system?

A

Tripartite = Crime is a (1) wrongful, (2) culpable (3) conduct.

Bipartite = A (1) criminal act (actus reus) committed with a (2) guilty mind (mens rea).

38
Q

Under the MPC/NYPL, a successful self-defence claim requires proof that D faced an imminent threat of death or great bodily injury.

T/F?

A

TRUE.

MPC = SUBJECTIVE = Follows a more straightforwards approach where it is enough to analyse D’s BELIEF the the use of force was needed (REGARDLESS OF REASONABLENESS).

Common Law = OBJECTIVE = Must analyse D’s BELIEF the the use of force was needed + its REASONABLENESS.

NYPL takes a mixed approach but in the case People v. Goetz = Court finally deemed that the objective reasonable man standard was needed:
* NYPL keeps partial individualisation.
* Importance of REASONABLE.

39
Q

What are the elements of self-defence justification (basic framework + variations) in the US?

A

D who claims self-defence must show:
1. Confronted with UNPROVOKED ATTACK of GREAT BODILY HARM.
2. IMMINENCE of threat.
3. Force used was NECESSARY + PROPORTIONAL.
4. REASONABLE BELIEF.

Variations:
5. ESCALATION OF FIGHT.
6. DUTY TO RETREAT before using force.

40
Q

What is the general rule for initial aggressors and self defence?

A

They have no right to claim self-defence = State v. Williams.

41
Q

What are the two exceptions to the unprovoked attack of great bodily harm requirement under self-defence?

A

Both exceptions allow the initial aggressor to use self-defence:

  1. WITHDRAWAL exception = Aggressor withdraws + Communicates to V but V persists = COUNTERATTACK!
  2. EXCESSIVE FORCE exception = Initial aggressor uses non-deadly force + V overreacts with DEADLY FORCE = SWITCH!
42
Q

Explain the necessity and the duty to retreat under self-defence?

A

Use of force may only be justified if it appears NECESSARY + is PROPORTIONAL.

Duty to retreat: Some J impose the duty to first retreat to a safe place before using deadly force.

Two positions:
* NO retreat position: Even for attacks outside one’s home = Stand your Ground Law.
* YES retreat position: If subjective awareness of complete safety.

Exception: Castle doctrine!

43
Q

Explain the requirement of (reasonable) belief under self-defence?

A

Cannot claim self-defence unless D BELIEVED deadly force was necessary + that belief was REASONABLE (most J).

In MPC = Subjective approach = Enough with only BELIEF.

Focus = Aggressor from POV of D.

How to assess reasonableness?
* Prior experiences.
* Physical characteristics.
* Same beliefs as D in light of circumstances.

People v. Goetz!!!

44
Q

Analyse self-defence under GCC?

A

More broad than US!
No limitation on type of attack nor legal goods UNLESS its a public good.
No general proportionality test.

S32: Self-defence:
* Appropriateness = Social ethical standard.
* Necessity + imminence = Use of force as last resort.

S33: Excessive self-defence: Not punished if its a consequence of fear.

45
Q

What is law enforcement justification and what are two typical scenarios?

A

PO can use force before:
1. Flagrante delicto.
2. Under authorised order.

Two typical scenarios:
1. Arrest of a suspect who flees.
2. Subjects attacking PO or others.

Tennessee v. Garner.

46
Q

What is the name of duress under S35 of the GCC?

A

Excusing necessity.

47
Q

Does necessity apply to murder?

A

NO.

48
Q

Explain the differences between justifying necessity (S34) and excusing necessity (S35) under the GCC?

A

For both = Imminence!

JUSTIFYING necessity (S34):
* Balancing of legal goods.
* Broad and includes any legal good.
* Himself or another person.
* Weighing of interests.
* Must be appropriate.
* If brought about it negligently = Still used but may lead to negligence.
* If brought intentionally = Still used.

EXCUSING necessity (S35) = DURESS:
* NARROWS DOWN to: Himself or another relative/close person.
* Not used if himself caused the danger.
* Still balancing of goods but EMPHASIS ON NECESSITY ITSELF.

49
Q

What is the baseline criterion for consent as a justification?

A

Consent must be effective! = If not, its a mens rea negation.

50
Q

What is the criteria for consent under S2.11 MPC?

A

Considered defence if:

  1. General consent:
    * Negates an element of offence.
    * Prevents infliction of harm described in the offence.
  2. Consent to bodily injury: When the conduct is charged as an offence due to causing or threatening bodily injury, consent to such conduct or injury is a defence if (either):
    * Bodily injury consented to is not serious.
    * Injury is reasonably foreseeable hazards of lawful activities (sports).
    * Consent establishes a justification for the conduct under Article 3 of the Code.
  3. Ineffective Consent: Consent is not considered effective if (either):
    * Given by a person legally incompetent
    * Given by a person who, due to youth, mental disease or defect, or intoxication, is manifestly unable
    * Given by a person whose improvident consent is sought to be prevented by the law defining the offence.
    * Induced by force, duress, or deception.
51
Q

What is the approach to consent under S228 GCC?

A

Consent: Whoever inflicts bodily harm with the victim’s consent is only deemed to act unlawfully if, despite that consent, the act offends common decency (= PUBLIC MORALS)”

Sex games case.

52
Q

Compare voluntary intoxication under common law + MPC?

A

Common law:
1. GI crimes: Does NOT EXCULPATE because D put themselves in that position to facilitate the crime.
2. SI crimes: Possibly EXCULPATES if it affects the SI portion.

MPC: Does not distinguish between GI + SI:
* Does NOT EXCULPATE UNLESS affects an element of the crime (knowledge or purpose).
* BUT! If recklessness is the required mens rea, an actor negligently intoxicated = Treated as if reckless.

53
Q

What is the intoxication regime under the GCC?

A

Normally an excuse under S20 and 21.

Treated as if legal insanity or diminished mental capacity.

Exception: Specific offence of EXTREME INTOXICATION:
* No excuse if they put themselves in INTOXICATED STATE + INTENT to commit offence/negligence (= Actio libera in causa).

54
Q

Link the M’Naghten test with the Ewing case?

A

Two steps to assess legal insanity:
1. Empirical = Did D have a pathological mental cond. at time of crime?

If YES:

  1. Does illness satisfy criteria for legal insanity under relevant standard? = * M’Naghten Test*
    * Widely used in the US to assess legal insanity excuse.
    *Narrow test compared to others.
    * Is a test that is ONLY focused on COGNITION (= Lack of knowledge), needs either:
  2. FACTUAL: Did not know what he was doing.
  3. MORAL: Did not know the wrongfulness of the act.

Ewing’s defence was upheld because he was not only (1) unable to appreciate the nature and quality but also (2) the wrongfulness of their acts.

Public morality as regards justifying circumstances.

55
Q

Explain the MPC legal insanity test?

A

MPC test follows a double prong standard: Both COGNITIVE + VOLITIONAL.

Cognition: Lacks substantial capacity to APPRECIATE WRONGFULNESS
OR
Volition: CONFORMITY to the law.

  • Similar to GCC *
56
Q

Explain S20 + S21 of the GCC?

A

GCC test follows a double prong standard: Both COGNITIVE + VOLITIONAL.

S20: Lack of criminal responsibility due to mental disorder:
Cognition: Lacks substantial capacity to APPRECIATE UNLAWFULNESS
OR
Volition: ACT IN ACCORDANCE to the law.

S21: Diminished responsibility: PARTIAL LEGAL INSANITY if substantially diminished at time of the commission = Mitigattion.

57
Q

People v. Lehnert

A

Had D made substantial steps toward the commission of the offence?
* YES based on evidence + facts.
* Physical proximity test = Actos conduct in regards to the dangerousness in terms of proximity to the commission of the crime.
* Substantial steps test = D’s conduct was corroborative of their firm intent to complete the commission of the crime.
* Strong + clear evidence = D’s purpose.

Incomplete attempt v. preparatory acts.

58
Q

Bärwurz case

A

Does D’s conduct qualify as attempted homicide with dolus eventualis?
* GCC -> Close proximity test = Taking steps which will IMMEDIATELY lead to completion.
* D’s action must be direct persecutor of fulfilment of the crime.
* All taken steps not sufficient!
* Uncertain that harm would follow directly.
* Completion of offence = Largely a matter of coincidence.
* Objective approach = Focus on D’s actions + outcomes.

Attempt.

59
Q

People v. Goetz

A

Is the reasonable man standard an objective or subjective test?
* NYPL = Partial individualisation = D’s BELIEF + REASONABLENESS.
* G appealed = Court acquitted him because the jury had used the objective reasonable man standard test = Erroneous + prejudicial.
* Prosecutor appealed = REVERSED.
* Objective reasonableness (common law) = Crucial.
* Importance for keeping ‘reasonable’ before ‘belief’.
* Initial aggressor cannot claim self-defence.

60
Q

Tennessee v. Garner

A

Can law enforcement authorities justifiably shoot non-violent fleeing suspects under the 4th am.?
* Balancing argument = Quality of intrusion (shot) must be balanced against importance of gov. intentions of justifying the intrusion.
* Historical argument = Common law of 4th am. origins contested on grounds of evolving law.
* Influence of MPC = Imminence.
* Tennesse law statute = Allowed POs to shoot violent crime suspects using any necessary means to stop them.
* Held = Where PO has PROBABLE cause to BELIEVE suspect POSES A THREAT of serious harm = Not unconstitutional to use deadly force to prevent their escape.

61
Q

Sex Bondage Games Case

A

Art. 228 GCC: Consent: “Whoever inflicts bodily harm with the victim’s consent is only deemed to act unlawfully if, despite that consent, the act offends COMMON DECENCY” (good morals).

Legal or moral criteria to establish whether an act violates common decency (good morals)?
* Objective standard for consent = Court examined whether the act, despite consent, violated common decency (good morals).
* Core must be legal: Indecent moral motivations not enough.
* (Un)acceptability of conduct based on balancing of the following:
** Special importance of legal goods involved having regard of;
** Type of physical injury inflicted and;
** Concrete danger to life.
* Threshold for violation of good morals: When a concrete danger to legal good is reached.
* Application of law to facts: D’s conduct EXCEEDED THE LIMITS acceptable to common decency (passed the threshold), by creating concrete danger of which he could be aware.

62
Q

Ewing v. US

A

Whether the definition of “wrongfulness” in the context of the insanity defence is subjective (personal moral beliefs) or objective (public morality).

  • Raised questions about the historical basis of the insanity defence, referencing Regina v. M’Naghten.
  • Insanity Defence Reform Act provides an affirmative defence if, at the time of the offence, D, due to a severe mental disease, was unable to appreciate the NATURE + QUALITY or the WRONGFULNESS of their acts.
  • M’Naghten test and IDRA closely resemble: Both emphasise D’s understanding of right and wrong, not just legality = M’Naghten’s responses suggest that wrongfulness is not solely based on knowledge of the law but also on whether D understood societal standards of morality.
  • Exception: People v. Schmidt emphasise the objective interpretation of wrongfulness, rejecting purely subjective standards.
  • Held: Public morality as regards justifying circumstances.
63
Q

Is consent an excuse or a justification?

A

Justification: When there is an honest belief SUPPORTED by effective consent.

Excuse (= Negating mens rea): When there is an honest belief UNSUPPORTED by effective consent.

Criminal Law I (4 decks)

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