MISSED PQs (Crim) Flashcards
What must be proven to show that a person acted “knowingly”?
(RE: a crime that has this element)
the “knowingly” element requires proof that…
the D was aware that his conduct was of the nature required by the criminal statute
When is it justified to commit battery in self-defense?
it’s justified to commit battery in self-defense when the person…
- actually AND reasonably believed that he was in danger of imminent unlawful harm;
- used reasonable force (i.e., not more than necessary) to prevent such harm; AND
- was not the initial aggressor (i.e., did not provoke the altercation)
Can a person be vicariously liable for someone else’s criminal act? If so, what must be proven?
= a person CAN be vicariously liable for someone else’s criminal act BY PROVING that the person had control over the other person’s conduct when they committed such criminal act
e.g., If an EE (e.g., supervisor) commits a crime within the scope of his employment, his ER (e.g., CEO) → CAN be held liable – so long as the ER was in a position to exercise control over the EE’s practices which resulted in a crime
What is a regulatory offense?
regulatory offenses =
- crimes that are based on statutes outside the criminal code
- they are STRICT Liability
- they are designed to protect public welfare
- e.g., speeding, public intoxication
- generally, only punishable by fine – b/c the punishment must fit the crime (b/c due process)
Describe the approaches to Conspiracy.
MPC & Modern View: Unilateral Conspiracy → at least ONE person specifically intends** **to enter agreement -AND- at least ONE conspirator must commit overt act *MAJORITY view
Common Law: Bilateral Conspiracy → TWO or more people specifically intend to enter agreement *minority view
Receiving Stolen Property - elements?
What happens when Police get involved?
Receiving Stolen Property - elements:
- D took possession of OR exercised control over stolen personal property;
- D knew that the property was stolen; AND
- D specifically intended to permanently deprive the owner of the property
*If the Police recover the property (i.e., locate AND exercise control over it), then the property is NOT considered “stolen” anymore
Doctrine of Transferred Intent
under the doctrine of Transferred Intent → D’s specific intent to kill one person will be transferred to the person who was actually harmed by D
so D will be guilty of the crime that he intended to commit towards the one person, but with respect to the actually harmed person
Under the MPC, when a statute fails to include a requisite mental state for a crime, what must the prosecution prove at minimum to convict the D?
Under the MPC, when a statute fails to include a requisite mental state for a crime, what must the prosecution prove at minimum to convict the D?
→ that the D acted AT LEAST recklessly when committing the crime
a
→
