NY BAR REVIEW CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE LAW COURSE

Question 1

how must one act to be held criminally liable for a crime?

Answer 1

intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence

Question 2

intentionally - define

Answer 2

conscious objective is to cause such result or engage in such conduct

Question 3

knowingly - define

Answer 3

person is aware that his conduct is of nature described by offense or that circumstance described by offense exits

Question 4

recklessly - define

Answer 4

he is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such result will occur

Question 5

criminal negligence - define

Answer 5

a person fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a certain result will occur

Question 6

mistaken belief of fact

Answer 6

not relieved of criminal liability unless factual mistakes negates culpable mental state required for commission of offense or statute defining offense expressly provides that factual mistake constitute a defense

Question 7

mistaken belief that does not constitute an offense

Answer 7

not relieved of criminal liability for conduct unless mistaken belief is based upon an official statement of the law

Question 8

defense related to mental culpability

Answer 8

1. mental disease or defect.
2. extreme emotional disturbance
3. intoxication
4. entrapment
5. justification

Question 9

mental disease or defect

Answer 9

at time of conduct, as result of mental disease or defect, he lacked substantial capacity to know or appreciate nature and consequence of conduct or that the conduct was wrong.
affirmative defense when def engaged in proscribed conduct, he lacked criminal responsibility by reason of mental disease or defect.
lacking substantial capacity to know or appreciate is designed to permit defendant possessed of mere surface knowledge or cognition to be excused and to require that he have some understanding of the legal and moral import of the conduct involved if he is to be held criminally responsible

Question 10

extreme emotional disturbance

Answer 10

acted under influence of extreme emotional disturbance for which there was a reasonable explanation or excuse.
prove that suffered from mental infirmity NOT rising to level of insanity at time of homicide, typically manifested by loss of self control. requires evidence of subjective element, that defendant acted under an extreme emotional disturbance and an objective element that there was a reasonable explanation or excuse for emotional disturbance.
affirmative defense to murder in first and second degree. reduces degree of criminal culpability for acts that would otherwise constitute murder.
NOT a defense to manslaughter or any other crime.
does NOT result in acquittal but reduces charge to manslaughter in first degree.

Question 11

intoxication

Answer 11

not a full defense to criminal charge.
in any prosecution for offense, evidence of it may be offered by defendant whenever its relevant to negate an element of crime charged.

Question 12

voluntary intoxication may NOT negate what?

Answer 12

reckless culpable mental state

Question 13

ordinary defense - define

Answer 13

the people have the burden of disproving it beyond a reasonable doubt.
evidence of the defense, if credited, is sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt.

Question 14

affirmative defense - define

Answer 14

defendant has the more demanding burden of establishing such a defense by a preponderance of the evidence

Question 15

alibi - define

Answer 15

evidence that will require an acquittal if when all the evidence is considered, a reasonable doubt is raised as to defendant’s guilt.
NOT an affirmative or exculpatory defense which defendant has burden of proving.
treated same as statutory defense eventhough isnt so defined in PENAL LAW.

Question 16

the people MUST always meet their burden of proving what?

Answer 16

that the accused actually committed the crime

Question 17

the people have the burden of disproving an alibi ________?

Answer 17

beyond a reasonable doubt

Question 18

entrapment - define

Answer 18

defendant engaged in proscribed conduct bc was induced or encouraged to do so by a public servant.
in any prosecution for an offense = affirmative defense.

Question 19

what does inducement or encouragement HAVE to be?

Answer 19

active

Question 20

conduct merely affording a person an opportunity to commit an offense constitutes entrapment?

Answer 20

NO

Question 21

an entrapment defense may fail bc of what?

Answer 21

a defendant’s predisposition to commit the offense

Question 22

in entrapment -if govt.’s conduct was so egregious and deprivative as to constitute a violation of due process clause of NYS constitution, defendant would be entitled to what?

Answer 22

DISMISSAL of charges

Question 23

justification - define

Answer 23

may use physical force against another if reasonably believes it necessary to defend self or third person from what reasonably believes to be use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by such other person.

conduct otherwise constituting an offense is justifiable when authorized by law or necessary as emergency measure to avoid IMMINENT injury.
defense of self or other.
in any prosecution for an offense, it is a defense.

Question 24

when may NOT use justification?

Answer 24

if he provoked the other person’s conduct w intent to cause him physical injury or if was initial aggressor and hasn’t effectively withdrawn from encounter

Question 25

may NOT use deadly physical force unless ____ and cannot what?

Answer 25

reasonably believes other person is using or about to use deadly physical force.
cannot retreat w complete safety.

Question 26

no duty to retreat when?

Answer 26

if actor is in his home AND was NOT initial aggressor

Question 27

in determining whether defendant acted reasonably in perceiving and defending against impending harm, it is permitted to introduce what type of evidence?

Answer 27

victim’s prior acts of violence if were known to defendant at time of incident

Question 28

renunciation - define

Answer 28

affirmative defense that defendant withdrew from participation in such offense prior to commission of offense and made substantial effort to prevent commission of crime.