Misc

Question 1

ignorance of law vs. ignorance of legal circumstances

Answer 1

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

Question 2

Purpose

Answer 2

Both terms indicate that the defendant consciously desired to bring about the harmful result or else hoped that it would occur.

Question 3

Knowledge

Answer 3

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

Question 4

Reckless

Answer 4

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

Question 5

Negligence

Answer 5

A defendant is negligent where he or she ought to have been aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk

Question 6

differentiation btwn reckless and negligence

Answer 6

Turns on whether the the defendant was ACTUALLY AWARE of the risk or OUGHT to have been aware

Question 7

Provocation test- voluntary manslaughter

Answer 7

: (1) objective, (2) subjective -> You need BOTH.

1. Would a reasonable person be provoked AND
2. Was the defendant provoked

Question 8

Self-defense elements

Answer 8

defendant must

1. reasonably beleive
2. threat of death or serious bodily injury is
3. imminent and
4. the force was reasonable and necessary

Question 9

Choice of evil/necessity elements

Answer 9

1. reasonable belief
2. that breaking the law is necessary
3. to avoid a greater evil
4. imminence

Question 10

Duress elements

Answer 10

1. Reasonable belief that
2. threat of imminent infliction of death or serious bodily harm to self (or family member)
3. Actor has no alternatives (No reasonable opportunity to escape the threatened harm)

Question 11

Consent

Answer 11

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

Question 12

Entrapment

Answer 12

1. the government tempts an innocent person to do something they wouldn’t normally do, and
2. 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)

Question 13

Insanity definition

Answer 13

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

Question 14

Insanity tests

Answer 14

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.

Question 15

Solicitation

Answer 15

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.

Question 16

Conspiracy

Answer 16

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

Question 17

defense to conspiracy

Answer 17

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

Question 18

complicity

Answer 18

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:

1. terminate complicity to the act and
2. stop the crime altogether or tell the cops the intended victim

Question 19

Attempt

Answer 19

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.

Question 20

Attempt- substantial steps

Answer 20

• 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

Question 21

Larceny:

Answer 21

taking of property from another’s possession with intent to deprive the person of that property

Question 22

embezzlement

Answer 22

the taking of property that was entrusted to you (usually employees or agents)

Question 23

extortion

Answer 23

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

Question 24

burglary

Answer 24

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.

Question 25

Robbery

Answer 25

Robbery: using force or threat of force when committing theft

Question 26

Perjury

Answer 26

1. False statement
2. Made knowingly (at time of speaking) and willfully (intent to deceive)
3. Under oath
4. Material to the proceeding (effects the elements)
5. Need two witness corroboration

literal truth (true but nonresponsive) is fine

Question 27

types of fraud

Answer 27

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"

Question 28

False statements

Answer 28

• 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

Question 29

obsruction of justice

Answer 29

• 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.

Question 30

inchoate crime- do they merge? (aka unconstitutional to sentence both the inchoate and object offense)

Answer 30

attempt- depends
solicitation- yes
 complicity - yes
conspiracy- no 
felony murder- depend (assault and manslaughter merge- others don't)