FUNDAMENTALS (criminal law)

Question 1

What grants the authority to the states and the federal government to enact laws concerning the regulation of crimes?

Answer 1

States government have general police power, a broad power to pass laws to provide for the general welfare of the state and its citizens.

The federal government lacks police powers, thus, it can only regulate crimes within the scope of its limited powers granted by the constitution.

Question 2

Jurisdiction: Which state can prosecute?

Answer 2

Single jurisdiction → state where a significant portion of the crime occurred can prosecute

Multiple jurisdictions → If a significant portion of crime occurred in two states (e.g., Δ shot across state line, killed a victim in another state), then BOTH states can prosecute

Question 3

A crime may be prosecuted in which states?

Answer 3

1) Where the act took place or
2) The result took place

Question 4

Jurisdiction: does “double jeopardy” bar multiple prosecutions in different jurisdictions?

Answer 4

No. Double jeopardy is no bar to multiple prosecutions in different jurisdictions

Question 5

Jurisdiction: When does the federal government have jurisdiction over a suit?

Answer 5

There is no federal common law of crimes; all crimes are statutory.

Under the U.S. Constitution, Congress is granted power over only a handful of crimes, including treason and currency counterfeiting.

Question 6

Jurisdiction: Who is resposible for regulating federal land or territories?

Answer 6

Congress has the power to criminalize conduct occurring over federally owned or controlled territory (national parks or the District of Columbia), conduct by United States nationals abroad, and conduct on ships or airplanes.

Question 7

What is the Burden of proof to prosecute crimes?

Answer 7

The prosecution must prove each and every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt

Question 8

Can the burden of proof be shifted on Defendant during criminal prosecution?

Answer 8

No. The burden of proof CANNOT be shifted to Δ

EXCEPT when the defendant is alleging affirmative defenses (e.g., insanity) → Δ CAN be required to prove this by
preponderance, or clear & convincing (federal level), and SC even said BRD for insanity

Question 9

If a Defendant is alleging an affirmative defense, who has the BoP? and what is the standard of proof required?

Answer 9

When the defendant is alleging affirmative defense, the Δ is going to be required to prove this by a preponderance or clear & convincing evidence standards.

Question 10

Generally, what are the types of offenses?

Answer 10

Generally, offenses are classified as felonies, misdemeanors, or violations (infractions)

Question 11

Felonies vs. misdemenors vs. infractions?

Answer 11

1) A felony is a crime punishable by death or imprisonment exceeding one year.

2) A misdemeanor is a crime punishable by imprisonment for less than one year or by a fine only.

3) infractions are minor breaches of law, typically punishable by only a fine.

Question 12

What are general rules regarding the legality of crime laws?

Answer 12

1) No criminal penalty may be imposed without fair notice that the conduct is forbidden.

2) In addition, there can be no ex post facto laws.

Question 13

Generally every crime must have these elements?

Answer 13

1) actus reus
2) mens rea
3) Concurrence of Act and Intent
4) if a crime is defined by a particular result, then the “causation” element must be proved (both actual and proximate causation)

Question 14

When is the actus reus element of a crime is proved?

Answer 14

1) When there is a physical act that is voluntary, or

2) When D fails to act (omission) when there was a duty to act

Question 15

What is considered a “physical voluntary act” under the actus reus element?

Answer 15

A physical voluntary act is a bodily movement over which D has control.

Question 16

Are habitual acts (conditioned reactions) considered voluntary acts?

Answer 16

Yes.

Question 17

What are acts that are not considered voluntary, that wont meet the element of actus reus?

Answer 17

1. Movement caused by another,
2. Reflexive or convulsive acts,
3. Acts performed while the defendant was unconscious or asleep or under hypnosis.

Question 18

If the act was involuntary what is the conculsion?

Answer 18

Rule → the act was involuntary, Δ won’t be criminally responsible.

Question 19

When does an involuntary acts satisfy the actus reus?

Answer 19

When:

1) D is aware that they have a condition that can result in involuntary actions, and 2) Fails to take reasonable steps to prevent such actions. (i.e. seizures)

Question 20

When is an omission to act satsify the actus reus element?

Answer 20

D will satisfy the element of actus reus if:

1) There was a legal duty to act;

2) D was aware of such duty; and

3) D could have reasonably performed the act

Question 21

How is duty created for actus reus pusposes?

Answer 21

A duty is created by:

1) Statute (e.g. duty to file income tax return)

2) Contract (e.g. lifeguard or nurse)

3) Special relationship to the victim (e.g. parent or spouse) – Must take reasonable steps

4) Voluntary assumption of care, creates a duty of reasonable care (When Δ affirmatively begins to act)

5. Creation of peril by the defendant (some jurisdictions)
6. Landowner liability (some jurisdictions)
7. Duty to control (some jurisdictions)

Question 22

What if there was a special relationship, but D was incapable of acting?

Answer 22

If D was physically incapable of acting, then there is no duty for a failure to act.
(i.e. parent cant swim, so they could not save drowning child)

Question 23

Are acts performed under duress considered voluntary acts?

Answer 23

Yes, it satisfies the actus reus element, however, it is a valid defense.

Question 24

Mens rea (guilty mind): What are the Common Law States of Mind?

Answer 24

At common law, the level of intent may be of four types:

1) general intent,
2) specific intent,
3) malice, and
4) strict liability

Question 25

What intent do specific intent crimes require?

Answer 25

the defendant (D) HAS the intent (knowledge or objective) to commit the act, combined with an intent to bring about the prohibited result.

Question 26

The elements of a criminal offense include?

Answer 26

1) the mens rea, or guilty mind;

2) the actus reus, the bad or unlawful act; and

3) causation.

With the exception of strict liability crimes, which have no mens rea.

Note: Every statute defining a substantive criminal offense must proscribe a particular mens rea and actus reus that
must be proved by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt for criminal liability to result.

Question 27

T or F: A bad thought standing alone cannot result in criminal liability.

Answer 27

True.

Question 28

What is this an example of:

Person A pushes Person B into a bystander, injuring the bystander. Can Person B be held criminally liable?

Answer 28

This is an actus reus example of a non-voluntary physical act.

The answer is No. The action was not within B’s control.

Question 29

If an epileptic knows of the possibility of a seizure and engages in the voluntary act of driving a car, has a seizure while driving, and causes a fatal
accident, is the epileptic criminally responsible?

Answer 29

Yes. An epileptic may still be criminally responsible if (i) he knows of the possibility of seizure and (ii) the last act was voluntary.

Question 30

What about acts committed while sleepwalking?

Answer 30

liability is not generally imposed under this case.

Question 31

When there is not a duty to act, is a defendant criminally liable because she fails to help others in trouble. i.e. A mere bystander?

Answer 31

No. When there is no duty to act, a defendant is not criminally liable because she fails to help others in trouble. A mere
bystander has no duty to act.

Question 32

What does the concurrance element of a crime means?

Answer 32

the mental and physical elements must exist at the same time as the offense.

Question 33

Does strict liablity crimes require concurrance?

Answer 33

No. Strict liability crimes have no mens rea requirement and require only an actus reus.

Question 34

Do strict liability crimes have a required mens rea?

Answer 34

No, it is sufficient that the act was performed

Question 35

What are the 4 main categories of strict liability crimes?

Answer 35

Remember MARS:

1) Morality crimes (bigamy)
2) Administrative crimes
3) Regulatory crimes
4) Statutory rape

Question 36

When dealing with specific intent crimes, why it is necessary to identify specific intent?

Answer 36

1) First, the prosecution must prove the specific intent in order to prosecute the defendant;

2) second, “certain defenses” (e.g., voluntary intoxication and unreasonable mistake of fact) are
applicable only to specific intent crimes.

Question 37

The specific intent crimes include?

Answer 37

Remember (FIAT)

1) First-degree murder.

2) Inchoate crimes (attempt, solicitation, conspiracy).

3) Assult with intent to commit battery.

4) Theft offenses (larceny, larceny by trick, false pretenses, embezzlement, forgery, burglary, robbery).

Question 38

What are the Defenses could negate “specific intent”?

Answer 38

(1) voluntary intoxication &

(2) mistake of fact (even an unreasonable one)

These NEGATE the mens rea (intent) requirement

Question 39

If V voluntarily subjects herself to harm (e.g. playing Russian Roulette), does that absolve D of liability?

Answer 39

No, generally not

Question 40

If someone voluntarily participates in an inherently dangerous sport or activity, such as skydiving or rock climbing, and they suffer an injury as a result is the organizer or instructor liable?

Answer 40

D could argue the V has assumed the risk associated with that activity. In such cases, the defendant, such as an organizer or instructor, might argue that the injured person’s voluntary participation absolves them of liability.

Question 41

If two individuals willingly engage in a consensual fight or mutually agreed-upon combat, and one person is injured, is the one that caused the injury liable?

Answer 41

the defendant may raise the voluntary assumption of risk defense. The argument could be that both parties consented to the activity, acknowledging the potential for harm, and thus the defendant should not be held fully responsible for the resulting injuries.

Question 42

In cases where a person voluntarily engages in an activity with clear warnings about potential risks, such as signing a liability waiver before participating in an amusement park ride?

Answer 42

The defendant may use the defense of voluntary assumption of risk. They may contend that the injured person was aware of and accepted the dangers associated with the activity by voluntarily participating unless there was a malfunction or D caused the risk.

Question 43

What do general intent crimes require?

Answer 43

D intended to commit the criminal act “only to commit the act itself” (or the specific result)

Question 44

What are the 5 main general intent crimes?

Answer 44

Battery
Rape
Kidnapping
False imprisonment
Manslaughter

Question 45

Is motive the same as intent?

Answer 45

Motive is not the same as intent.

The motive is the reason or explanation for the crime and is immaterial to the substantive criminal offense.

Question 46

what is Transferred intent?

Answer 46

If D intends to harm one party but inadvertently harms another party, D’s original intent is“transferred” to the actual victim.

Note: Transferred intent does not convert the intent to commit one crime into the intent to commit a different crime, except in the Felony Murder Rule.

Question 47

Can you transfer intent to commit one crime, to intent to commit another crime?

Answer 47

Transferred intent does not convert the intent to commit one crime into the intent to commit a different crime, except in the Felony Murder Rule.

Felony-murder rule: D may be convicted of felony murder if the killing occurs during the commission or attempted commission of a felony. (malice aforethought is based on the commission of the felony, regardless if D actually wanted to commit the murder or not)

Question 48

Does the doctrine of transferred intent apply if the victim was unforeseeable? (ex. D intends to shoot A but actually shoots B)

Answer 48

Yes. For example, if Max shoots into a car intending to kill Kathy, but a jogger runs in front of the car at the exact moment the shot was fired and is killed, Max will still be liable.

Question 49

Is transferred intent applicable to attempted offenses?

Answer 49

No. The transferred intent doctrine is only used for completed crimes and is not used for attempted crimes.

Question 50

D points a gun at A, intending to shoot and kill A, but accidentally shoots and kills B instead. D is charged of how many crimes?

Answer 50

D is guilty of two crimes:

1) the murder of B under the doctrine of transferred intent, and
2) the attempted murder of A.

Question 51

Does the doctrine of transferred intent applies to cases of mistaken identity?

Answer 51

No. the doctrine of transferred intent applies only to “bad aim” cases and not to cases of mistaken identity

Question 52

If D shoots at A and hits A, although mistakenly believing that A is B, does transferred of intent apply?

Answer 52

the doctrine of transferred intent is unnecessary because D hit the very body he intended to hit; the intent, therefore, does not need to be transferred—D is guilty of shooting A

Question 53

Transferred intent, also known as the unintended victim rule, what crimes it is usually confined to?

Answer 53

Transferred intent is usually confined to homicide, battery, and arson.

Question 54

What about defenses D can bring, during a transfer of intent case?

Answer 54

Any defenses that the defendant could assert against the intended victim (e.g., self-defense) may also transfer to the unintended victim.

Question 55

D shoots at A with the intent to kill him, but D instead shoots B. The shot does not kill B, but merely injures her. Can D be convicted of the attempted murder of B?

Answer 55

D can be convicted of the
attempted murder of A, and of battery against B, but cannot be convicted of the attempted murder of B (because transferred intent only applies to completed crimes and not attempted crimes)

Question 56

What are Malice crimes?

Answer 56

Malice Crimes are the crimes of common-law murder and arson.

Question 57

What is required to satisfy the element of malice in malice crimes (common law murder and arson)?

Answer 57

These crimes require malice, which is defined as a reckless disregard of a high risk of harm.

Although these two crimes appear to have an “intent” requirement (e.g., intent to kill), malice requires only a criminal act without excuse, justification, or mitigation. Intent can be inferred from the accomplishment of the act.

Question 58

Does MPC mentions transferred intent?

Answer 58

The Model Penal Code, while not specifically recognizing the doctrine of transferred intent, does recognize liability when purposely, knowingly,
recklessly, or negligently causing a particular result is an element of an offense.

Question 59

What are the levels of culpability based on the Model Penal Code (“MPC”)?

Answer 59

1) Purposely (subjective)
2) Knowingly (subjective)
3) Recklessly (subjective)
4) Negligently (objective)

Question 60

When does D act “purposely” for the purposes of MPC mens rea?

Answer 60

With the conscious objective to produce the result or engage in a particular behavior.

Subjective standard

Question 61

When does D act “knowingly” for the purposes of MPC mens rea?

Answer 61

When he knows that a course of action will almost certainly produce a specific result.

Subjective standard

Question 62

Differentiate between purposely and knowingly?

Answer 62

Purposely: D desires to produce a specific result (Ex. If Max shoots Brianne at close range and kills her, he has acted “purposely”)

Knowingly: D is aware that a specific result is almost certain to occur
(if Max means to kill Brianne, and he places a bomb in the car that he knows is carrying both Brianne and Mat, it is unlikely he could be charged with “purposely” killing Mat, but will likely be charged with “knowingly” killing Mat)

Question 63

When does D act “recklessly” for the purposes of MPC mens rea?

Answer 63

When D “consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk”

Note: The risk must constitute a gross deviation from the standard of conduct of a law-abiding person. The mere realization of the risk is not enough.

Majority jrx: uses a subjective standard,

Minority jrx: uses an objective standard

Question 64

When does D act “negligently” for the purposes of MPC mens rea?

Answer 64

When, regardless of whether D was actually aware of the risk, D should have been aware of the risk.

The risk must constitute a gross deviation from the standard of care of a reasonable person in the same situation.

Question 65

Differentiate between criminal negligence & civil negligence?

Answer 65

Criminal negligence: gross deviation from the normal standard of care

Civil negligence: deviation from the normal standard of care.

Question 66

T or F: if a statute specifies a mental state, proof of a more culpable mental state satisfies the mens rea requirement.

Answer 66

Yes. For example, if a statutory crime required that an act
be undertaken knowingly, establishing that the act was committed purposefully satisfies the mens rea requirement with respect to that act

Question 67

If the requisite mens rea is not stated in a criminal statute, what happens?

Answer 67

it is established if the defendant acted at least recklessly.

Question 68

If the mens rea does not state the culpable mind applicable to all material elements of the crime, what happens?

Answer 68

Then the mens rea applicable to one material element is applicable to all material
elements, unless a contrary purpose plainly appears.

Question 69

Examples of strict-liability crimes include?

Answer 69

statutory rape; bigamy; regulatory offenses for public welfare; regulation of food, drugs, and firearms; and selling liquor to minors.

Question 70

Whats a Public welfare offense?

Answer 70

A public welfare offense is a strict-liability crime for which no mens rea is required.

Conduct that is subject to stringent public regulation includes that which could seriously threaten the public’s health or safety or is inherently dangerous.

Typical examples include adulteration of food or drugs, regulation of waste disposal, and selling liquor to minors.

Question 71

Is there a Presumption against strict liability?

Answer 71

Criminal offenses requiring no mens rea are generally disfavored.

Courts have traditionally held that there must be some clear indication of congressional intent, express or implied, to dispense with mens rea as an element of the crime.

In determining legislative intent, courts will often consider the severity of the associated penalty.

THEREFORE, courts usually find crimes with relatively light penalties to be strict liability offenses, and those with more severe penalties (such as felony crimes) to have a mens rea element.

Question 72

Strict liability vs. Vicarious Liability?

Answer 72

Vicarious liability differs from strict liability in that:

strict-liability crimes require only a personal act on the part of the defendant (actus reus);

vicarious liability crimes do not require an actus reus by the defendant. Instead, vicarious liability imposes criminal liability on the defendant for the actus reus of a third party.

Question 73

When courts most commonly impose vicarious liability for strict-liability crimes?

Answer 73

For individual: most commonly when an employer or principal is vicariously liable for the crimes of an employee or agent.

For corporations: Modern statutes, impose vicarious liability on corporations when the offensive act is performed by an agent of the corporation
acting within the scope of his employment or when the act is performed by a high-ranking corporate agent who likely represents corporate policy.

Question 74

T or F: The defendant must have committed the offense with a culpable state of mind to be liable.

Answer 74

True. (culpable state of mind can be any of the 4 state of minds)

Question 75

T or F: defendant need not know that their conduct is illegal to be guilty of a crime.

Answer 75

True.

Question 76

What does concurrence require?

Answer 76

Concurrence between:

1) The mental state and the act; and
2) The mind and the result

However, if the result is too attenuated from the original intent, there will likely be no concurrence and no liability

(i.e. if someone broke into a store to sleep, not to commit a felony, then there is no concurrence between the act of entering the store and intent to commit a felony, even if the intent was formed after he got into the place)

Question 77

Define “causation”

Answer 77

When mens rea is a requirement of a crime, that mens rea must generally cause the actus res. In addition, the defendant’s act must cause the particular result made unlawful by statute

Question 78

Causation requires both..?

Answer 78

Actual cause (“cause-in-fact) and proximate cause

Question 79

What are two tests to determine whether actual cause exists?

Answer 79

1) “But for” causation: Criminal result would not have occurred “but for” D’s act;

or

2) Substantial Factor: D’s acts were a substantial factor in causing the criminal result (e.g. D’s acts shorten V’s life or speeds up their inevitable death)

Note: The decision whether to use the “but for” test or “substantial factor” test is state specific.

Question 80

T or F: General intent is a “catch-all” category of intent. It requires that the defendant intend to commit an act that is prohibited by law (whether the defendant intended the act’s result is irrelevant)

Answer 80

True.

Question 81

MPC proximate cause:

Answer 81

Exists when the actual result involves the same kind of harm that the D “designed or contemplated” and is not too “remote or accidental.

Question 82

What should you ask when determining whether proximate cause exists?

Answer 82

Is the connection between the act and the harm so attenuated that it is unfair to hold D liable for that harm?

Question 83

Is D still liable if there is a foreseeable intervening event?

Answer 83

Yes, D will likely still be liable because the causal chain has not been broken.

Question 84

Carly pushes Max while ice skating, and Max falls and breaks his hip on the ice. Does causation exists?

Answer 84

Causation exists because it is forseeable that Max would fall on the ice if pushed.

Question 85

V dies in an unforeseen manner not intended by D. Is D still liable?

Answer 85

Yes, if:

1) D directly caused V’s harm

For example, D likely still liable even if the injury is different than what the D intended (shooting in the foot vs. the head) and even if harm the occurs in a different way than what D intended;

2) V had a pre-existing condition that exacerbated the harm (Eggshell rule); or

3) V died from fright or stress

Question 86

Define: superceding cause

Answer 86

Unforeseeable intervening cause.

Absolves D of liability if both the act and the injury are unforeseeable.

Question 87

D punches V on the arm, after which V returns home, uninjured. That night, a burglar breaks into V’s home and and shoots V in the arm. is there a causation?

Answer 87

The causation for the gunshot does not exist for D.

Question 88

If, after D causes V injury, V dies as a result of medical treatment, is D still liable?

Answer 88

Yes, unless the medical treatment was performed in a grossly negligent or reckless manner.

Medical treatment performed in an ordinarily negligent manner is NOT sufficient to supersede, it must be grossly negligent or reckless

Question 89

D shoots V and a bystander refuses to render aid that would have saved V, will third party’s failure to act absolve the D of liability?

Answer 89

Never.

Question 90

What could negates the mens rea required of a crime?

Answer 90

A mistake of fact.

but it must be an “honest mistake.”

The defense applies differently between specific- and general-intent crimes.

Question 91

Is Mistake of fact a defense to a strict-liability crime?

Answer 91

Mistake of fact is never a defense to a strict-liability crime because strict-liability offenses do not have a mens rea.

Question 92

Reasonableness of the mistake of fact? how reasonable?

Answer 92

1) A mistake of fact is a defense to a specific-intent crime, even if the mistake is unreasonable.

2) A mistake of fact must be reasonable in order to be a defense to a general-intent or malice crime.

Question 93

An athlete takes an expensive gold watch from a table mistakenly thinking that it was her inexpensive black plastic sports watch. Is this enough to absolve her of the mens rea?

Answer 93

Yes. even though the athlete’s mistake of fact is unreasonable, the athlete lacks the intent to steal necessary to commit larceny, a specific-intent crime

Question 94

Mistake of facts under the MPC?

Answer 94

Under the Model Penal Code, a mistake or ignorance of fact that negates the required state of mind for a material element of a crime is a defense

Question 95

Mistake of law, valid defense?

Answer 95

Mistakes or ignorance of the law generally are not valid defense.

Exceptions:
i) Reasonable reliance on a statute or a court decision that later is held invalid.

ii) Reasonable reliance on official interpretation of the law by the government agency or official responsible for enforcing the law.

(This exception does not extend to reliance on advice of a private attorney, even if reasonable)

iii) An honestly held mistake of law negates the required intent (e.g., specific intent) or mental state (e.g., purposefully) for a material element of the
crime.

D reasonably relied on a statute that is invalid; or
Crime requires knowledge of the law itself (ex. crime requires D to “willfully” violate it; often applies to complicated tax laws)

Question 96

Transferred intent is most commonly used with homicide, battery, and arson.

Question 97

Is incorrect or bad legal advice from an attorney in itself a valid mistake-of-law defense?

Answer 97

It is not itself a valid mistake-of-law defense, but it may negate the required intent or mental state for a material element of the crime.

Question 98

Does a mistake of law as to the existence of a defense permit a defendant to raise the defense?

Answer 98

a mistake of law as to the existence of a defense does not permit a defendant to raise the defense unless one of the exceptions enumerated
above applies.

Question 99

How does the MPC treats deliberate ignorance? (i.e. a person is aware of hugh probablity that a fact exits)

Answer 99

MPC treats it as knowledge

Question 100

How does the MPC treats deliberate ignorance? (i.e. a person is aware of hugh probablity that a fact exits)

Answer 100

MPC treats it as knowledge

Question 101

Can a mistake negates the mens rea for one crime nonetheless be guilty for different crime?

Answer 101

Under the MPC, yes.

Example:
Josh physically kicked a person and caused them harm, not knowing he was a police officer. The state has a statute making committing a battery to a police officer makes is a felonious assault. However, because Josh did not know this person was a police officer, he cannot be charged with this felony. However, he can still be charged for regular battery because it would have been a crime whether he knew the police was an officer or not.

Note: HOWEVER, the other crime cannot be more serious than the crime would have committed. Meaning, be charged with something more serious than felonious assault.)

Question 102

Transferred intent is most commonly used with and never with..

Answer 102

homicide, battery, and arson.

Never with attempt

Question 103

Josh intended to steal bread for a starving child. Does he have the culpable mind?

Answer 103

Motive is irrelevant to mens rea. If one intends to steal, one has the mens rea

Question 104

Intent may be inferred from the doing of the act to specific or general crimes?

Answer 104

Only general crimes. Additionally, an actual intent to commit the act is not required, merely creating a high risk that the act would occur is sufficient

Question 105

Josh intended to steal bread for a starving child does he have a guilty mens rea?

Answer 105

Motive is irrelevant to mens rea. If one intends to steal, one has the mens rea

Question 106

What are defenses that only apply to specific intent crimes?

Answer 106

voluntary intoxication and unreasonable mistake of fact

Question 107

What is the specific intent the prosecution must prove in the crime of Solicitation?

Answer 107

Intent to have the person solicited commit the crime

Question 108

What is the specific intent the prosecution must prove in the crime of Attempt:

Answer 108

Intent to complete the crime

Question 109

What is the specific intent the prosecution must prove in the crime of Conspiracy?

Answer 109

Intent to have the crime completed

Question 110

What is the specific intent the prosecution must prove in the crime of First degree premeditated murder (by statute)

Answer 110

Premeditated, deliberate
intent to kill

Question 111

What is the specific intent the prosecution must prove in the crime of Assault:

Answer 111

Intent to commit a battery

Question 112

What is the specific intent the prosecution must prove in the crime of Larceny and robbery:

Answer 112

Intent to permanently deprive another of their interest in the property taken

Question 113

What is the specific intent the prosecution must prove in the crime of Burglary?

Answer 113

The intent at the time of entry to commit a felony in the dwelling of
another

Question 114

What is the specific intent the prosecution must prove in the crimes of Forgery, False pretenses, and Embezzlement?

Answer 114

Intent to defraud.

Question 115

Common law murder and arson are what types of intent crimes?

Answer 115

Malice.

Question 116

To show malice, the prosecution need only show that

Answer 116

defendant recklessly disregarded an obvious or high risk that the harmful result would occur.

Question 117

In what situations the D may be absolved of criminal responsibility?

Answer 117

If a person is found to be legally insane at the time of the act (tests).

If a person was intoxicated when they committed the crime depending if It was voluntary or involuntary intoxication.

Question 118

if a crime is defined by a particular result. the prosecution must prove that D’s conduct was…

Answer 118

the actual cause (or cause in fact) and the proximate cause (or legal cause) of that result

Question 119

IF D attacked and injured V, and at the hospital V refused lifesaving blood tansfusion because of their religious beliefs and then they died. Is D the cause of V’s death?

Answer 119

Yes, under the but-for test, but for D’s conduct, V would have not been injured and placed in a hospital and would not have died.

Question 120

When does “concurrent” causes exist? and how are these treated?

Answer 120

concurrent causes exist if
1) multiple forces combined cause a result

2) no one of these forces alone would have been sufficient to cause the result.

In this case, each force is deemed to be a “but-for cause” for the result

Question 121

A man stabbed a neighbor, while at the same time his was shot the neighbor, however, it was found that neither the stab or the gun independently were sufficient to kill the neighbor. However, the neighbor is dead. Is there causation?

Answer 121

Yes, the combined causes are both deemed but-if for the result

Question 122

What if someone Hasten’s a victim impending death? (i.e. one person had one hour left to live, and their friend decided to kill him)

Answer 122

the person will be held responsible for causing the death. The action will be treated as a but-for cause for the person’s death and not (the impending death)

Question 123

What’s the substantial factor test for (actual causation)? and when is it used? and how is it treated

Answer 123

It is used when 1) there are multiple forces if combined cause a result, and 2) any one of these factors alone would have been sufficient to cause that result, and 3) it is impossible to tell which force caused what portion of the results

Each force is treated as an actual cause, so long as it was substantial factor in bringing the about result

Question 124

D’s actions are proximate cause if..

Answer 124

if the result is a natural, probable, and foreseeable consequence of those actions

Question 125

D stealing V’s purse triggered an undiagonosed brain aneursym causing v’s death. explain the causation?

Answer 125

D is the actual cause of v’s death but he is not the proximate cause of D’s death. Because stealing a purse does not usually causes death and it is unforeseeable that such action would cause such results.

Question 126

What if a V as a preexisting condition exacerbates the harm caused by D?

Answer 126

V’s preexisting condition will not break the casual chains and would not defeat the proximate cause, regardless if D knew or did not know about the condition before acting

Question 127

In cases where there are intervening or superseding causes, how would that affect proximate causation?

Answer 127

If it was an unforeseeable event, it is considered a superseding event and can break the casual chain and defeat proximate.

if it was a foreseeable event, is is considered an intervening cause and it will not break the casual chain.

Question 128

If V refused to take medical treatment, is that reason to break the casual chain?

Answer 128

No it is considered foreseeable and wont break the chain.

Question 129

if there is a negligent medical treatment of a V, is it a reason to break the casual chain?

Answer 129

No, however, if the negligent medical treatment was grossly negligent or reckless, then yes.

Question 130

If V’s reaction’s to D causes the death, is it a reason to break the casual chain?

Answer 130

Only if V’s action is a proportionate or reasonable reaction to D’s action.

i.e. D threatens V with a knife and V jumps out of a window on the third floor? maybe considered superseding.