Misc Flashcards
ignorance of law vs. ignorance of legal circumstances
Not knowing the law is NOT a good defense unless there was no fair notice or it ws overly vague
Ignorance of legal circumstances can be good defense bc how can they have crim intent and be morally culpable
Purpose
Both terms indicate that the defendant consciously desired to bring about the harmful result or else hoped that it would occur.
Knowledge
Knowledge means that the defendant is aware that the harmful result is practically certain to occur because of the defendant’s conduct. The defendant may not intend the harmful result to occur; nonetheless, he or she knows that it’s highly certain
Reckless
An act is reckless where the defendant is aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the defendant’s conduct will cause a harmful result. The defendant doesn’t know that the result will likely occur, but the defendant does know that there’s a big risk, and despite that risk, proceeds with the act
Negligence
A defendant is negligent where he or she ought to have been aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk
differentiation btwn reckless and negligence
Turns on whether the the defendant was ACTUALLY AWARE of the risk or OUGHT to have been aware
Provocation test- voluntary manslaughter
: (1) objective, (2) subjective -> You need BOTH.
- Would a reasonable person be provoked AND
- Was the defendant provoked
Self-defense elements
defendant must
- reasonably beleive
- threat of death or serious bodily injury is
- imminent and
- the force was reasonable and necessary
Choice of evil/necessity elements
- reasonable belief
- that breaking the law is necessary
- to avoid a greater evil
- imminence
Duress elements
- Reasonable belief that
- threat of imminent infliction of death or serious bodily harm to self (or family member)
- Actor has no alternatives (No reasonable opportunity to escape the threatened harm)
Consent
Consent negates the elemnts of the offense for bodily harm crimes (BUT only if physical harm isn’t seriouis and applies to reasonably foreseeable injury injury in sport or other lawful activity
Entrapment
- the government tempts an innocent person to do something they wouldn’t normally do, and
- the inducement was overwhelming
(note: Not available as a defense if bodily harm is part of the conduct charged… no amount of money or opportunity would make a reasonable person commit homicide)
Insanity definition
Actor is not criminally liable if they are deemed to lack capacity (need the simultaneous actus & mens)
- Mental illness comes up early to determine if the defendant should stand trial
Insanity tests
M’naughten two prong test:
The defendant did not know the nature and quality of their act (cognitive capacity)
Defendant did not know what they were doing was wrong (moral capacity - Serravo)
MPC:
As a result of the defendant’s mental disease or defect, they lacked substantial capacity to understand the criminality of their conduct or conform conduct to the requirements of the law
There is no national majority rule for insanity, but it’s usually some form of the M’naughten test
But, SCOTUS held in Kahler that both prongs of M’naughten are not required for due process. States get to determine their own standard for insanity.
Solicitation
Solicitation should really be reserved from someone that is commanding, egging, beseeching others to commit a crime.
Solicitation is encouraging someone else to commit a crime.
o Asking, demanding, or coercing someone to commit a crime. o It is immaterial if you fail to communicate if the intent was to do it anyway.
Conspiracy
1) An agreement;
2) With specific intent to commit the object crime; and
3) Someone in the conspiracy commits an overt act. (not all just one person)
Two or more people are required.
Time frame = continuous offence until you revoke it with an overt act.
-liability for secondary crimes in furtherance of the conspiracy
defense to conspiracy
Impossibility
- Legal impossibilities- good defense
Whatever it is was wouldn’t be a crime anyway
Can’t conspire to commit a crime with a negligent mens rea – legal impossibility
- Factual- bad defense
It would be a crime but something unknown to the defendant occurs to prevent the completion of a crime… you’re screwed
complicity
1) Takes an affirmative act in furtherance of that crime, (actus reus)
2) With specific intent to commit the object crime (mens rea)
Aiding and abetting (mens rea) only makes our defendant liable for our secondary crimes if he could have foreseen them (advanced knowledge). (national majority view)
Renunciation:
- terminate complicity to the act and
- stop the crime altogether or tell the cops the intended victim
Attempt
1) A step that goes beyond mere preparation (substantial step)
2) With specific intent to commit the object crime
Preparation is not an irrevocable commitment to follow-through.
Attempt- substantial steps
- Lying in wait; searching for potential victim
- Enticing or seeking to entice victim to go to the place where the crime will be committed
- Research/check out the place contemplated for commission of crime
- Unlawful entry of a structure, enclosure, or vehicle where the crime will be committed
- possession of materials to be employed in the commission of the crime, the item serves no lawful purpose
- Soliciting an innocent agent to engage in conduct continuing an element of the crime
Larceny:
taking of property from another’s possession with intent to deprive the person of that property
embezzlement
the taking of property that was entrusted to you (usually employees or agents)
extortion
Using threats to obtain property Doesn’t only pertain to illegal activity Types of blackmail Spite: threatening to doing something Opportunistic: refrain from doing something
burglary
non-consensual entry into an occupied structure w/ the intent to commit a felony within.
Affirmative defense that the structure was abandoned
Merger? Violent felonies don’t merge but lower level felonies would.
Robbery
Robbery: using force or threat of force when committing theft
Perjury
- False statement
- Made knowingly (at time of speaking) and willfully (intent to deceive)
- Under oath
- Material to the proceeding (effects the elements)
- Need two witness corroboration
literal truth (true but nonresponsive) is fine
types of fraud
Three kinds in federal law Wire fraud Scheme or artifice to defraud by wires in the ground Mail fraud Scheme or artifice to defraud by mail Honest services fraud Done to deal with corrupt state officials so feds could prosecute "depriving the public of honest services"
False statements
- Statement made to an agency or investigator
- D made statement or concealment that’s false
- The statement or concealment is material
- It distorts the agencies actions
- Both knowingly and willingly
- Statement is within federal jurisdiction
obsruction of justice
- Federal law
- An obstructive act of a pending investigation of a grand jury
- with corrupt intent
- Nexus requirement: the misstatement or obstructive act has to be in the course of the investigation of the grand jury.
inchoate crime- do they merge? (aka unconstitutional to sentence both the inchoate and object offense)
attempt- depends solicitation- yes complicity - yes conspiracy- no felony murder- depend (assault and manslaughter merge- others don't)
