My - Crim Flashcards
Recklessly
Know of the substantial or unjustifiable Risk but do it anyway + the disregard is a gross deviation form the “reasonable man” standard
Knowingly
Aware of the nature of conduct or conduct will cause result
Purposely
Conscious effort to engage in the conduct
or
cause the result
Negligently
Not aware of the risk the conduct causes even though should have + the disregard is a gross deviation form the “reasonable man” standard
Actus Reus 2 Elements
- Voluntary Act or Legal Omission (failure to act)~that causes ~
- Harm / “social harm”
Mens Rea
Guilty mind; criminal intent - culpability depends on what D is thinking
**Criminal Intent **
Actus Reus + Mens Rea (BOTH! Try to defeat or prove one or other or both !!! Test DOH !)
Omission - Duties to Act
- Status; mother / child
- Contract; Lifeguard
- Statute; File Taxes
- Volunteered to assume car (and secluded person in a manner that renders others from giving aid
Can a CEO be held criminally liable for strict liability crime?
Yes is the CEO is in a ‘responsible relationship’ to the harm
Why is a car crash due to a heart attack not a criminal act?
Due to the requirement of VOLUNTARINESS OF ACTION as a conduct element in crim liability. In this case D did not chose to have a heart attack - This is an Involuntary Act
Billy is drowning. Stranger leaps in to save, others don’t because he did. Stranger changes his mind at last moment and swims back to shore. Legal duty?
YES
- assumption of care
- creation of peril
Is a reasonable mistake of age defense to statutory rape?
No because Age is a strict liability element of crime
Under what two circumstances is one said to intend the results of his acts?
DESIRE: When he desires the result regardless of the likelihood it will come about, and
KNOWLEDGE: When he knows the result is substantially certain to occur, regardless of his desire to bring it about.
Dracula, Mummy, and Werewolf are sitting around drinking and playing cards. Mummy and Werewolf discover that Dracula has trump cards hidden under his cloak and that he has been cheating them all night. Infuriated, Mummy begins beating Dracula savagely with a bottle, and Dracula dies. Moments later, without realizing Dracula is already dead, Werewolf says, “I’ll finish this crook,” and slashes Dracula’s throat with a razor-sharp claw. Can Werewolf be charged with murder?
No. No Actus Reus
Every element of a criminal definition must be met to show that a crime has occurred. Even though Werewolf acted with the intent to cause death, he did not in fact cause the prohibited harm, and thus one of the essential elements of the crime is missing. Murder is the unlawful killing of a person; here, Werewolf was unable to kill his victim because Dracula was already dead at the time of Werewolf’s attack.
NOTE:
Although Werewolf may not be charged with murder or any other species of homicide, he might be subject to prosecution for criminal attempt.
Hi and Lois Flagstone, husband and wife, are ice skating on Golden Pond, when Hi falls through the ice. Lois skates blithely away, knowing that no one else is close enough to save him. Is Lois guilty of murder?
Yes, because she omitted to act where she had a legal duty (arising out of the husband-wife relationship), she was apparently able to help, and her intentional omission proximately caused Hi’s death.
Under what circumstances is a person said to act “intentionally/purposefully”?
When his conscious objective is either to
engage in certain behavior
~or~
cause a certain result.
When is ignorance or mistake of fact a good defense to a criminal prosecution?
Only where it negates the necessary mens rea.
If there would have been no crime committed if the facts had been as the defendant actually and reasonably believed, mistake of fact is a good defense.
(Note that for specific intent crimes, e.g., FIAT reasonableness of belief is not required.)
Mistake of fact negates the mens rea—it shows that the defendant did not have a guilty mind.
Faustus kills Mephistopheles, whom he mistakenly believes is Satan incarnate. Is his mistaken belief a good defense to a charge of murder?
No, because Faustus’ belief is unreasonable. His belief may go to the issue of his sanity, in an insanity defense, however.
- unreasonable mistake of fact
- not for common law murder
The State of Euphoria has a statute prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverages to individuals under age 21. The crime is considered a misdemeanor. Sylvia Swizzlestick is prosecuted for violating the statute. Sylvia defends on grounds that she mistakenly believed the person buying the alcohol was 21, because he looked just like a 22-year-old whose identification she had already checked. Could her mistake, if reasonable, exonerate her?
No. The crime is a strict liability offense, which means that Sylvia need not be aware of all the elements of the offense to be held liable. The statute does not require a mens rea, is regulatory, and is a misdemeanor—all hallmarks of a strict liability offense.
Is “mistake of law” a valid defense to a criminal charge?
In general, no. Thus, if a defendant mistakenly believes his acts are not proscribed, or if he is simply unaware of the law proscribing his behavior, he’ll still be liable—no matter how reasonable his belief is.
(Note that if defendant had advice as to the law on which he could reasonably rely—e.g., a judicial decision—and the source was mistaken, he will have a valid defense. However, the source cannot be his own private lawyer.)
Brutus intentionally stabs Caesar in the leg with a sword. Caesar is hospitalized for the wound. While he is in the hospital and weak from surgery, Marc Antony enters and stabs the Emperor through the heart. Is Brutus guilty of homicide, because Caesar would not have been vulnerable to Marc Antony “but for” Brutus’ initial attack?
No, because Marc Antony’s act was an independent, intervening, unforeseeable cause that breaks the chain of proximate causation. Marc Antony is the only person responsible for the homicide.
Bob Ford intends to kill Jesse James. He shoots at James and misses while James is riding his horse. To escape Ford’s shots, James turns his horse and gallops off in the opposite direction, where he is struck and killed by a boulder from an unexpected rockslide. Is Ford’s conduct a proximate cause of James’ death?
No. Although Ford’s conduct satisfies the “but for” test, the rockslide is an independent, intervening, unforeseeable cause.
Antony intended to kill Cleopatra and poisoned her. The poison was not fatal, but required Cleo to be hospitalized. While in the hospital, and due to the hospital’s gross negligence, Cleo is administered a supposed antidote, which is actually deadly poison, and she dies. Is Antony’s act the proximate cause of Cleo’s death?
No. The negligent treatment in the hospital is independent, intervening, and unforeseeable, because the hospital acted with gross negligence.
Adam intends to kill Eve and approaches her with a poisoned apple. To avoid eating the apple, which Eve knows to be poisoned, she jumps out of her treehouse into the mouth of a tiger and is killed. Is Adam’s act a proximate cause of Eve’s death?
Yes. Although Eve’s act is intervening and unforeseeable, it is not independent of Adam’s conduct, but a direct response to it.
Miles Standish and John Alden are rivals for Priscilla’s affections. To better his chances, Standish administers a mild poison to Alden in a piece of pumpkin pie. Alden is particularly sensitive to the poison and dies. Is Standish guilty of common law murder?
YES -Modern statutes separate murder into degrees. A murder becomes a first-degree murder if it involves premeditation or deliberation or it is committed in the course of a felony. In many states, killing by poison would constitute first-degree murder (because the use of poison indicates premeditation)
What are the four elements of “adequate provocation” that will reduce murder to voluntary manslaughter?
There are two subjective elements and two objective elements:
SUBJECTIVE:
- The defendant must have in fact been provoked (he must be in the “heat of passion”);
- The defendant must not have “cooled off.” between the provocation and the killing.
OBJECTIVE:
- A reasonable person would have been provoked (i.e., there must be adequate provocation); and
- A reasonable person, provoked in the same way, would not have “cooled off.” between the provocation and the killing.
Under what circumstances is homicide justifiable?
- Where the killing is necessary,
- The killer is without fault;
and - The killing occurs in:
a) The performance of a legal duty
OR
b) The exercise of a legal right.
If Def intends to cause Victim serious injury and V later dies as a result of a further event affected by the attack is Def guilty of murder?
Provided Def intended to cause Victim serious injury, this is enough to convict.
Harriet plots to kill Frank during hunting by shooting him. She does so. Is this first degree murder?
Yes, she planned and carried out simultaneously with that intent.
Harriet plots to kill Frank during hunting by shooting him. On the way, she unknowingly runs over and kills him. Is this first degree murder?
NO because she did not have the intent coupled with act b/c she ran over him accidentally.
What does malice mean?
A) actual Intention to do the particular kind of HARM that was done
B) Recklessness as to whether that harm would occur
(has nothing to do with wickedness or ill will)
What is definition of murder?
The unlawful killing of another living human being with malice aforethought express or implied.
What are 4 types of malice for determining Common Law Murder?
Intentional:
1) Intent to kill / Express Malice
~ Purposeful + Knowing~
Unintentional:
2) Intent to cause Serious Bodily Injury (Death Occurs)
3) Depraved/wicked heart = Extreme Recklessness
(High probability that what you are doing will cause death + act has no social value)
4) Felony Murder
What is depraved heart?
Extreme indifference to the value of human life: Extreme reckless behavior w/ high probability you will cause death + act has no social value
** Criminal Liability =
= AR (~causation) + Mens Rea + (No Defenses)
** NEED ALL **
AR (~causation) + Mens Rea + (No Def) =
Criminal Liability
If you see no Mens Rea portion of statute then ..
Consider STRICT LIABILITY - at least in essay cover it
Causation - 2 Prongs
- “But For” (actual cause)
2. Proximate Cause (Legal Causation)
Proximate Cause means
Directness from injury to death.
> > Foreseeability link to death without an intervening event
Ex- Arson -> death of fireman
Ex - Serious Bodily Injury -> Medical Malpractice
Voluntary Manslaughter
Heat of Passion Murder
MPC equivalent is Extrem Emotional Disturbance
Felony Murder
strict liability rule that says if you satisfy the elements of the predicate felony, then you automatically responsible for the murder that takes place during
Elements for Heat of Passion
A) Legally Sufficient Provocation (words alone are not enough)
[Prior provocation can never be SOLE cause of sudden passion] [Same sex advance doesn’t count as provocation]
B) Reasonable Person might act similarly
C) There has been no cooling off period
Defenses to Crime
Justification, Excuse, and Mitigation.
Heat of Passion Killing (mitigation)
Mitigates murder to Voluntary Manslaughter
Mistake of Fact
Specific intent crime Mistake of Fact can be unreasonable, but must be in good faith honest mistake.
How do you treat Proximate Cause and freak acts of nature ?
Freak acts of Nature are ordinarily seen as independent, intervening acts
Before she can jump, defendant Jones shoots her. Renee falls to her death. Can Jones be prosecuted for murder?
- *Read Facts - she FELL ..did NOT JUMP**
- Yes, Jones was a cause in fact (but for cause) of Renee’s death.
- Gunshot may not have been the only cause of Renee’s death, it was a cause in fact. But for Jones shooting her, we cannot state with any certainty that Renee would have plunged at that moment to her death.
Barney Strikes Ellis. When Ellis is taken to the hospital, he is mistakenly left in the corner of an overcrowded emergency room. He dies of internal bleeding before doctors can treat him. According to the defense experts, if Ellis had been treated in a more timely manner, he could have been saved.
Is Barney the proximate cause of Ellis’ death?
Yes, because the hospital staff’s actions did not break the chain of causation. It is not merely because he started the chain of causation that Barney is criminally responsible, but because that chain was not broken by the actions or omissions of the hospital staff.
Exceptions Search Warrant
S - Search incident to arrest P - Plain View A - Automobile C - Consent E - Exigent Circ S - Special circumstances ; inventory, community care taking
Evaluation
4th Amend Search
- Standing?
- personally asserts own rights - Is Def one of the “People” protected?
- US citizen .. etc - Is the thing a - person, house, paper, or effect?
- Was it a Search? A Seizure?
- Was it Reasonable?
- Does Exclusionary Rule apply ?
Exclusionary Rule is a …?
Remedy to deter improper police actions
The gov’t shouldn’t be a law breaker
Two Prong- Expectation of Privacy Test (need both)
- Person exhibits an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy
- The expectation is one that society (objective) is prepared to recognize as “Reasonable”
Dog Sniff
- thing they detect is contraband
- no privacy issue
Limited information
Curtilage - Four Factors
- Proximity of the area to the home
- Area included in an enclosure surrounding the home
- Nature of the uses of the area
- Steps taken to protect the area from observation
2 Kinds of Seizures
1) Person
2) Property
Seizure Rule
must be a meaningful interference w/ an individual’s possessory interest in that property
Seizable Evidence -: only 4 things can be seized w/ PC to believe is criminal evidence
1) Contraband - things that may not be lawfully possessed by a private party
2) Fruits of a crime
3) Instrumentalities of a crime
4) Mere evidence - item of value b/c it will help the police in apprehension or conviction of a person for an offense
When Can you go into a home to make a warrantless arrest?
- You can’t go into a home to make an arrest w/o a warrant
- 3rd party’s house to find the suspect and use the arrest warrant = Need a search warrant
Warrant Exception - Exigency
1) “Hot Pursuit” - prevent escape
2) Imminent Destruction of Evidence
3) Risk of Danger to police or other persons
Invalid arrests effect on the prosecution ?
None
Search Warrant needs ..to be approved ..[Elements]
- By a neutral detached magistrate and - must describe with particularity the place to be searched and
- the things to be seized
- supported by oath or affirmation
Who Can consent?
1) Authority
2) Apparent Authority - Based on the REASONABLE belief of the cop at the scene w/ available facts at the time of the search that the person granting consent had the authority to do so
Search in violation of 4th Amendment Standing Rule Stated - what you need to claim right / standing
Whether there is a search in violation of 4th is whether YOU have an expectation of privacy
- petitioner must have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the Area Searched
4th Standing locations:
1) Your Home / Residence =
2) Someone Else’s House =
3) Your Car + you’re there =
4) Your car + someone else is driving =
5) You are in someone else’s car =
6) Owner of car there + you’re there =
1) Person who owns or possesses (renter) the home has standing
2) None if just on premises
a) Maybe if sole occupant w/ permission of owner ; complete domination and control
b) Maybe if owner is also home - then a person can challenge , standing of an overnight guest
3) Yes
4) yes mostly can
5) depends on the area of car searched
6) maybe ; depends on expectation of privacy in area
Exclusionary Rule Exceptions
1) . Independent Source - Gained by way of an independent source from an unpoisoned tree
2) Inevitable Discovery - if they would have eventually found it anyway (inevitable they would find it)
3) Attenuation / Dissipation of Taint -
Factors to be considered:
a) Length of time between illegality and seizure b) Purposefulness and Flagrancy of bad conduct c) Existence of intervening causes i) Such as an act of Free Will by Def
4) Good Faith - (Must Balance)
substantial Social Cost vs. Violation for deterrence a) How much is the cost vs. how much deterrence is there really ?
Involuntary Confession Due Process Violation
Elements to claim?
Remedy?
Due Process RULE:
1) Must be a state action
2) Must have Standing - If coerced confession implicates another (same as 4th standing) - no standing
3) Exclusionary Rule - Involuntarily Obtained is Inadmissible at criminal trial or for Impeachment
Fruit of Poisonous Tree = most likely same as the 4th
Interrogation 5th Amend Right Against Self Incrimination
Elements needed in case to claim
Violation if Confession is compelled
Elements:
a) Must be a person (not corp)
i) Any Witness can claim the 5th
b) Compulsion
c) Criminal Case (not Civil)
d) Witness against himself (not another)
i) Must be testimonial + Incriminating
ii) Real of physical evidence does not count
iii) Oral or written does countMiranda Right to Counsel RULES
1) Triggered - Custodial + Interrogation
2) Waiver - Knowing , voluntary, + Intelligent
3) No Fruit of poisonous tree - anything can be used
Custody =
Taken into custody or
otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in
any significant way
Test:
How would a reasonable person in the same circumstances understood his situation?
Interrogation =
1) Express questioning or Its functional equivalent
2) When police should know that conversation is reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating statement from the suspect
a) perceptions of the suspect not the intention of the police
b) police practice is designed to elicit such a response
If suspect is unusually susceptible to particular type of persuasion
Miranda Waiver Must be =
MUST be Voluntarily, knowingly, intelligently waived
Is Miranda once invoked crime specific?
NO - not crime specific
Once Invoked RTC then responding to further police questioning is …
NOT a valid waiver if police initiated more custodial interrogation
BUT it is if the accused himself initiated further communication
Miranda Elicit / Interrogation .. means when …?
Words or actions that an officer SHOULD know is likely to elicit an incriminating statement
(Negligence standard)
Imperfect Self Defense intentional killing of another.
— also aggressor in the fight caused death -
Honest unreasonable belief that
deadly force necessary.
Manslaughter
