Final Review Flashcards
What are the specific intent crimes?
BFF CARL SAFE
- burglary
- forgery
- false pretenses
- conspiracy
- attempt
- robbery
- larceny
- solicitation
- assault
- first deg. premeditated murder
- embezzlement
which crimes require malice? What is a malicious intent?
malice: reckless disregard of an obvious or high risk that the particular harmful result will occur
- CL murder
- arson
general intent?
an awareness of all factors constituting the crime
which type of intent can be inferred from just doing the act?
general intent
MPC, purposely:
conscious object to engage in certain conduct or cause a certain result
MPC, knowingly:
a D acts knowingly w respect to his conduct when he knows that his conduct will necessarily or very likely cause a particular result; also, deliberately avoiding learning the truth
- also/or: aware of his conduct is of a particular nature or that certain circumstances exist
MPC, recklessly:
consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that is a gross deviation from the SOC
MPC, negligently:
failure to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk
false pretenses?
- obtaining TITLE
- to the PP of another
- by an intentioanl false statement of past or existing fact
- with intent to defaud the other
larceny by trisk?
- obtaining CUTODY
- to the pp of another
- by an intentional false statement
- w/ intent to de3fraud the other
CL murder?
unlawful killing of another with malice aforethought
voluntary manslaughter?
killing that would be murder but for the existence of adequate provocation. provocation is only adequate if:
- sudden and itense heat of passion as measured RP S
- D was provoked
- no cooling off period (not sufficient time and D DN in fact cool off)
felony murder?
Any death caused in the commission of, or in an attempt to commit, a felony is murder.
limitations on liability re felony murder?
- D must have committed or attempted to commit the underlying felony; defense that negates an element of the underlying felony will also be a defense to felony murder
- felony must be distinct from the killin gitself
- death must have been a foreseeable result
- once the D reaches temporary safety, subsequent deaths are N felony murder
- not liable for felony murder when the death of a co-felon is caused by resistance from the felony victim or police
requirements for a warrant
- issued by neutral magistrate
- specificity + particularity
- showing of PC - supports belief that seizable evidence will be foundo n the person or premises
exceptions to warrant requirement?
- search incident to arrest
- automobile exception
- plain view
- consent
- stop and frisk
- hot pursuit/exigent circumstances
does voluntary intoxication negate the intent req’d for recklesness, i.e. murder?
no, it does not (intent to kill - one variation is recklessness)
if 2 people decide to rob a store, and one is lookout, and the other is shot by the store clerk, is the other one guilty of felony murder?
no, not responsible for the death of the co-felon in this situation b/c it falls under the “resistance” prong – the victim in this case was resisting
if an undercover cop gets defendant to agree to do a crime and eneter into a conspiracy with them, is that defendant guilty of conspiracy?
no, b/c there is no agreement – cop does not qualify as one of the two actually “guilty minds”
if a cop has a warrant to search a place, and the warrant doens’t name anybody specifically,a nd the cop starts searching everyone at the place simply b/c they’re there, is that lawful?
no, search warrant does not authorize the police to search persons found on the premises who are not named in the warrant. In Ybarra v. Illinois (1979), a case based on similar facts, the Supreme Court held that “each patron of the tavern had an individual right to be free of unreasonable searches, and presence at a location subject to search does not negate the requirement of probable cause to search the person present.”
when a cop stops a defendant in a car, is that defendant now subject to custodial interrogation?
no, not for miranda purposes, there is no custodial interrogation at this phase
if a defendant asks for an atty, and it’s not given, and some times goes by, and no atty, and questioning resumes by police, is that info gathered admissible, even if miranda warnings are given?
The court should sustain the objection because the police did not honor the woman’s request for an attorney. At any time prior to or during a custodial interrogation, the accused may invoke a Miranda (Fifth Amendment) right to counsel. If the accused invokes this right, all questioning must cease until the accused is provided with an attorney or initiates further questioning himself. Thus, the police questioning of the woman about the robbery was improper, and she can have her statements excluded.
