Midterm Exam Spring 2020 Flashcards

Question

Omission Exceptions:

Answer 1

Creation of peril You have an obligation to rescue them or get them help. Even if you didn't mean for the circumstance you created to be harmful. Duty to control the conduct of others Master Servant Landowner Duty Keep your premises safe Statutory Relationship Statute requires you to help (mandated reporters) Certain Status Relationships Parent and child relationships Contractual Relationships Contracted to provide services. Ex - life guard or babysitter Voluntary Consumption of Care If you make the situation worse, you need to render aid. When the person has ne previous obligation to aid. Control People under your control. Ex - military or employees

Answer 2

``` Court decides (regarding omission): Although there was a moral obligation, there was no legal relationship. Thus, there was no duty to act. While his wife was out of town, the Defendant spent the weekend with another woman, Blanche Burns. On Monday afternoon, Ms. Burns consumed morphine in an apparent suicide attempt. After she died, the Defendant was convicted for manslaughter for failing to render aid. ```

Answer 3

This court deems the cessation of life support as an omission of further treatment as opposed to an affirmative act and there is no criminal liability for an omission where no legal duty is owed. This was qualified as an omission, not an act. Why? Because of long term policy implications. All the doctors would be arrested. They had to classify feeding as a "treatment." Nobody would want to be a doctor.

Answer 4

Actual - in your hand Constructive - in your car, with 4 others Knowing - know what you have, and know you have it Mere - you know that you have something, but you don't know what it is. Unwitting - you don't know you have it

Answer 5

Injury to some socially valuable interest b. Based on different categories that help determine if social harm is present: i. Result Crimes: crimes that prohibit a specific result (death) ii. Conduct Crimes: crimes that prohibit specific conduct, even if no harmful result occurs (drunk driving)

Answer 6

Neither of the above two exist unless a certain attendant circumstance exists. Fact that exists at the time of the actor’s conduct, or at the time of a particular result, which is required to be proven in the definition of the offense.

Answer 7

willed muscular bodily movement by the actor. An act is willed if the bodily movement was controlled by the mind of the actor.

Answer 8

not clearly defined. Involuntary acts are instead defined as Reflex Convulsion Bodily movement while asleep Conduct during hypnosis Bodily movement that otherwise is not a product of the effort or determination of the actor

Answer 9

A person is not guilty of a crime with a voluntary act alone, they must also have a “guilty mind.” “morally blameworthy” or “culpable” state of mind

Answer 10

Narrow sense of the term. Particular mental state listed out by the statute.

Answer 11

Highlights the difference between the culpable approach and the elemental approach to mens rea evaluation Gas leak happened as a result of the defendant stealing pipes, and someone was harmed from inhalation of the gasses. The first court used a culpable definition of mens rea The appellate court uses an elemental approach and determines that his malicious thoughts were gauged at stealing the money, not poisoning someone.

Answer 12

Man swings a wine bottle and injures the plaintiff. Appeals his conviction, stating that the wrong mens rea was used. If this were a GENERAL intent - then the prosecutor would have been right. But, because this was written by a statute, this changes to specific intent

Answer 13

A person commits the social harm intentionally if: (1) it was their conscious objective to cause the result or (2) they knew that the result was virtually certain to occur because of their conduct.

Answer 14

a person acts intentionally if the result of their conduct differs from that which she desired only in respect to the identity of the victim.

Answer 15

One acts knowingly if they (1) are aware of the fact (2) correctly believes that fact exists, (3) suspects the fact exists and purposely avoids learning if their suspicion is correct (Willful blindness)

Answer 16

Conduct creates a substantial and unjustifiable risk of social harm. · Unaware of the risk – but should be aware

Answer 17

· Very substantial and unjustified risk taking · Conscious disregard a substantial risk that causes social harm · Aware of the risk, and chose to disregard it

Answer 18

a. To go beyond just the actus reus of the crime b. Special motive c. Awareness of a particular attendant circumstance any crime that requires any above and beyond doing the moral culpability or the actual act (intent to do something else, specific motive, or it can be awareness of attendant circumstances)

Answer 19

a. Any offense that requires a proof of a culpable mental state of b. actus reus committed with any culpable state of mind if not outlined by the statute

Answer 20

Court evaluates mens rea - knowingly - wilful blindness The Defendant, Sandra Nations (Defendant) owns and operates the Main Street Disco, in which police officers found a scantily clad sixteen-year-old girl dancing for tips. Consequently, the Defendant was charged with endangering the welfare of a child less than seventeen years old. The Defendant was convicted and fined $1,000. Court finds Defendant guilty because, knowingly means suspects the fact exists and purposely avoids learning if their suspicion is correct

Answer 21

· a person is not guilty of an offense unless he acted purposely, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently, with respect to each material element of the offense · If there is one mens rea listed in the statute, the MPC requires that it apply to all of the elements of the statute. 1. Purposely (MPC): conscious objective to cause a result 2. Knowingly (MPC): person is aware that the result is practically certain to occur from their conduct 3. Reckless (MPC): consciously disregards a substantial risk that will result from his conduct 4. Negligently: person should be aware of the substantial risk. There is a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the actor’s situation.

Answer 22

· An offense is strictly liable if commission of the actus reus is enough alone (no mens rea required)

Answer 23

· An offense is strictly liable if commission of the actus reus is enough alone (no mens rea required) · Public Welfare Offenses: malum prohibitum (conduct that is wrong just because it is prohibited) or Malum in se conduct (inherently wrong) · Usually very minor in punishment (typically a fine, or very short jail time) · Public Welfare Offenses typically threaten the safety of many people in society. Ex – transportation of explosives · The Outlier: Rape (no public welfare strict liability offense) · Courts do not assume that the legislature intended to abandon the common law mens rea requirement, even if a statute is silent.

Answer 24

Only recognizes SL on violations If there's no mens rea, then it's not a crime and you cannot punish me heavily Aka only used for minor offenses The mens rea for the MP code is reckless if not specified. If no mental state is listed, if there's a state of mind mentioned once to one verb, it applies to all the verbs in the statute.

Answer 25

Highlights public welfare offenses Morissette (defendant), entered an Air Force bombing range and took several spent bomb casings that had been lying around for years exposed to the weather and rusting and sold them. Morissette was indicted for violating 18 U.S.C. § 641 which made it a crime to “knowingly convert” government property. Malum Prohibitum - the activity is not inherently bad, but instead there’s a statute that forbids it Malum In Se - the act is bad within itself, or inherently

Answer 26

Is there specific intent? o A person is not guilty of a specific intent crime if their mistake of fact negates the specific-intent element of the offense. o Even an unreasonable mistake of fact (a mistake that a reasonable person would not make) will sever culpability if the mistake negates the mens rea required for the offense.* · Is there general intent? o A defendant is not guilty of a general intent offense if their mistake of fact was reasonable. If unreasonable, then still guilty.

Answer 27

Step 1: is the offense general intent, specific intent, or SL? Step 2: If specific intent - does the mistake of fact relate to the specific intent portion of the offense? If yes, Elemental Approach: does the mistake negate the specific intent element of the offense? If it does, the DF is not guilty, and must be acquitted. If no, treat the offense as if it were a general intent crime. If general intent, did the DF act with a morally blameworthy state of mind? Whether the DF's mistake was reasonable or unreasonable? If it was unreasonable then he acted with a culpable state of mind and may be convicted. If his mistake was reasonable then he is morally innocent and entitled to a defense for want of a mens rea. Alternatively, even if the DF's mistake was reasonable, some court will apply the moral wrong or legal wrong doctrines. Then apply legal wrong or moral wrong doctrine Moral wrong doctrine looks through DF's eyes: if they engage knowingly in morally wrong doctrine, then they also assume the risk that their conduct is also a legal wrong. Legally Wrong Doctrine: punishes one based on looking at the facts as the DF sees it. So they are punished for the greater degree of the offense. Because you assume the risk of that legally wrong act you're engaging in If SL: a mistake is never a defense

Answer 28

§ Common Law Rule: If the crime is a specific intent crime the belief can be unreasonable so long as it is a good faith belief If the crime is a general intent crime the belief must be reasonable

Answer 29

-Modern View - Does the defendant's mistake of fact negate the mens rea required for an element of the crime? Receiving stolen property without knowing the person does not have the required mens rea and cannot be convicted of a crime

Answer 30

Defendant Staples was convicted under the National Firearms Act, which criminalizes the possession of a weapon that is capable of automatically firing. Defendant argued that he did not know that the gun would fire automatically. Should this be a strict liability offense? Does this require mens rea? The court looks toward congressional intent to answer these questions. The Court distinguishes this offense from the strict liability offenses and reasons that there has been a long tradition of widespread lawful gun ownership by private persons in this country. Therefore the Court rests it opinion on the rationale that “it is unthinkable that Congress intended to subject such law-abiding, well intentioned citizens to a possible 10 year term of imprisonment if what they genuinely and reasonably believed was a conventional semiautomatic turns out to have worn down into or modified into an automatic weapon.

Answer 31

Brief Fact Summary. This case stems from sexual intercourse between 13-year-old Erica Frazier (Frazier) and the Defendant, 20-year-old Raymond Garnett (Defendant), resulting in the birth of a baby. At the time of the incident, the Defendant had been classified as being mildly retarded. Court rules: this is a creature of legislation. They would have been mens rea in if they wanted to. Rape is an outlier, in the sense that you're punished harder than most others. Question of public policy - we try to protect our children

Answer 32

The Defendant was convicted of petty theft for taking lumber he believed to belong to him. The Defendant appealed the conviction on the ground that the jury was improperly instructed. Specific intent - good faith ONLY - subjective test is used General Intent Crime - mistake of fact is not a defense unless it is BOTH good faith and reasonable - both objective and subjective tests used Court rules: Subjective test wins. Good faith is enough because specific intent is required.

Answer 33

exception to the above general rule. If the defendant’s conduct was immoral, they also assume the risk that that conduct is illegal, as well. Here, one cannot use the mistake of fact defense, even if the mistake was reasonable.

Answer 34

If the defendant’s mistake was reasonable, but they would still be breaking another law, then they are not excused from culpability, even if they made a reasonable mistake of fact.

Answer 35

· Under the MPC, if a defendant is guilty of a lesser crime with the fact as they saw the situation, taking into consideration there reasonable mistake of fact, they will be charged at the lesser offense (not the greater offense, like in the common law).

Answer 36

· Generally, not knowing the law never excuses a defendant from culpability. Even if it’s reasonable. · Encourages people to know the law and avoid fraud/people always saying they didn’t know the law · There are some exceptions to the above general mistake of law rule o Not guilty if his mistake negates an element of the crime o Not guilty if there is authorized reliance (relying on a statement of the law that turns out to be erroneous) One could claim she was unaware the statute applied to her conduct. One could claim she lacked the specific intent to commit the actus reus constituting the crime because of a misunderstanding of the law.

Answer 37

Brief Fact Summary. Appellant was convicted of carrying a gun in New York State. Appellant argued that because he was a corrections officer, he mistakenly believed that he fell within the statutory exemption for peace officers.

Answer 38

Defendant Cheek was convicted under a provision of the Federal Tax Code that makes it a felony to “willfully attempt in any manner to evade or defeat any tax imposed by this title or payment thereof” for failing to file a tax return. Defendant argued that he had acted on information he received from a group opposing the institution of taxation and based on this information he believed that he did not owe any taxes. Generally, mistake of law is no defense. But if the mistake negates the specific intent portion of the crime, even if unreasonable, they are allowed to present that defense, and the jury will decide. The def. can have an unreasonable belief, as long as it's reasonably held. This is a subjective test. And then the jury weighs this subjective belief.

Answer 39

the mistake must negate an element of the offense. Defenses are not available if they're guilty of another crime if facts were at the offender had supposed. Only punished at the lower crime you thought you committed

Answer 40

· “But For” Test: But for D’s voluntary act, would the social harm have occurred when it did? Multiple Actual Causes: Often times two defendants can be the actual cause of a social harm, independently. Concurrent Sufficient Causes: Alternative tests when there are two acts, either one of which is sufficient to cause the resulting harm, occur concurrently. 1. Substantial Factor Test: (some jurisdictions use this test) Was D’s conduct a substantial factor in the resulting harm? A. MPC doesn’t use substantial factor test, only the but for test B. 2 def. acting independently, two separate acts, but simultaneously (but for fails)

Answer 41

The Defendant Oxendine, Sr., was convicted by jury of manslaughter for the death of his son, Jeffrey Oxendine, Jr., whom the Defendant had beaten or kicked in the abdomen. The Defendant was convicted of manslaughter, and he argued on appeal that since the Defendant’s girlfriend had already delivered a fatal blow to the victim, he did not actually cause the victim’s death. Acceleration versus aggravation Aggravation is to make worse, but doesn't speed up Acceleration is to speed up the victim’s death in any way

Answer 42

· In addition to actual cause, a defendant must also be a proximate cause of the social harm in order to be found guilty. the unlawful act must be so integrated with the offense that we say that the result must have been proximately caused by the act ○ We attribute liability for proximate cause when the result is foreseeable by your actions § Proximate cause= legal cause (synonyms)

Answer 43

Rideout (D) pleaded that the accident caused by his driving while intoxicated (OWI) or visibly impaired (OWVI) was not the immediate cause of Keiser’s death. Keiser had been a passenger in the car hit by Rideout, but had thereafter reached the side of the road safely before returning to the unlit car he had been in, which was in the center of the road. While there, he was struck by another vehicle. Because there was no evidence that the victim was alive after impact, the court could not find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of manslaughter.

Answer 44

· This is an actual cause of social harm that arises after D’s causal contribution to the result. · Does not necessarily sever liability, unless if this new force severs causation, then they aren't held liable. · Unlawful act must be so integrated with the offense that we say that the result must have been proximately caused by the act. · Abnormal and unforeseeable intervening causes sever liability · An omission is NEVER a superseding action, and the Defendant will always be held liable 1. Response or Coincidence? a. Responsive: intervening cause occurs as a response to the defendant’s earlier conduct b. Coincidental: cause was not one that was foreseeable to a reasonable person, and is not a response to the defendant’s act 2. Intended Consequences: a. A defendant is typically a proximate cause of a result, even with an intervening cause, if the defendant intended that result to occur 3. Free, Deliberate & Informed a. A Defendant is not the proximate cause of a result if a free, deliberate, and informed act of another human being intervenes.

Answer 45

The Defendant, Velazquez (Defendant), was prosecuted for vehicular homicide in connection with his drag racing with the victim on a public road. Court holds that there was CIF, but not PC. Because there was an intervening act. Thus, liability is severed. Although there is a responsive intervening act, it was not foreseeable.

Answer 46

Temporal - mens rea must be concurrent at time of actus reus (can't change your mind at a later time) Motivational - mens rea has to be the motivation for the actus reus

Answer 47

Appellant hit and killed a man while driving his car. Appellant argues that because there was no evidence of culpable negligence up to and including the time he hit the victim, he cannot be convicted of manslaughter.

Answer 48

the killing of a human being by another human being.

Answer 49

the CL provides that a fetus is not a human being until it is born alive.

Answer 50

a person is legally dead when there is a total stoppage of the circulation of the blood and a permanent cessation of breathing and heart function. Some states (most states) classify “brain dead” to be the end of life.

Answer 51

the killing of a human being by another human being with malice aforethought.

Answer 52

o Intending to kill another human being o Intention to inflict grievous bodily injury o Intention to commit a felony, and a death accidentally occurs in the process o An extremely reckless disregard for the value of human life

Answer 53

o Prosecutor must show beyond a reasonable doubt that the killer purposely or knowingly took another’s life

Answer 54

A willful, deliberate, premeditated murder

Answer 55

specific intent to kill, intentional

Answer 56

to think about it in advance; think beforehand

Answer 57

to reflect, to measure and evaluate the major facets of choice in a cool, calm manner; free from any excitement

Answer 58

o Everything else that is not willful, deliberate, or premeditated o Is still an intentional killing of a human being