Other Crimes

Question 1

What is the common-law definition of battery? (Russo)

Answer 1

(1) Engage in unlawful application of physical force (direct or indirect)
(2) Resulting in either a physical injury or an offensive touching
(3) Acting with purpose, knowledge, or recklessness

People v. Peck (Spitting Counts)

Question 2

Is battery only a specific-intent crime? (Russo)

Answer 2

No. Battery can be either a specific-intent or general-intent crime. A specific desire to harm or offend the victim is almost always sufficient for battery. In most jurisdictions, a defendant can also commit battery through reckless conduct without specifically intending the harmful result.

Question 3

Under the common law, what is physical contact sufficient for battery? (Q) (Russo)

Answer 3

Under the common law, physical contact sufficient for battery includes direct contact with the victim’s body. Physical conduct also occurs if the defendant causes some object or instrumentality to contact the victim’s body. Finally, battery can be committed by contacting something intimately connected with the victim’s person (e.g., deliberately causing the person to spill hot coffee on their person).

Question 4

What is the actus reus of battery? (Q) (Russo)

Answer 4

The actus reus of battery consists of causing harmful or offensive physical contact with another person. The physical contact sufficient for battery includes direct contact with the victim’s body. Physical contact also occurs when the defendant causes some object or instrumentality to contact the victim’s body.

Question 5

Under the common law of battery, what is harmful contact? (Q) (Russo)

Answer 5

Under the common law of battery, harmful contact is contact that results in pain or injury to some part of the victim’s body. Visible injury is not required.

Question 6

Under the common law of battery, what is offensive contact? (Q) (Russo)

Answer 6

Under the common law of battery, offensive contact is any contact that occurs in a rude, angry, or insolent manner, or which is an affront to a person’s dignity. Unwanted sexual advances, such as kissing someone, have been treated as sufficient for battery.

Question 7

Under what circumstances can consent be a defense to criminal battery? (Q) (Russo)

Answer 7

Consent can be a defense to criminal battery if:

the consent is to noninjurious and slight contact, such as a kiss or a handshake;
the consent is to a medical procedure; or
the physical contact occurs in the context of a sport, in which the contact is a normal and expected part of the game, provided that participants in the sport could reasonably expect the specific nature and degree of force that the defendant employed under the circumstances.

Question 8

Under the common law, what is assault? (Q) (Russo)

Answer 8

Under the common law, assault is typically defined as either (1) an attempted battery or (2) the act of intentionally placing another in reasonable apprehension of an imminent bodily injury.

An attempted battery requires a substantial step toward completion of a battery on another to rise to the level of assault. An assault of the reasonable-apprehension type requires the specific intent to cause the victim to apprehend the imminent battery. The reasonable-apprehension type does not require an intent to carry out the battery. The harm is not the risk of injury but the victim’s lack of security and well-being.

Question 9

For purposes of common-law assault, is apprehension the same as fear? (Q) (Russo)

Answer 9

No. For purposes of common-law assault, apprehension is not the same as fear. Apprehension means an awareness or expectation that something will occur. Therefore, in most jurisdictions, a defendant can commit assault even if the victim is never afraid. The victim’s apprehension of battery must be reasonable. Unreasonable fears will not support an assault charge.

Question 10

Under the common law of assault, is a threat to batter someone at a future time sufficient to constitute assault? (Q) (Russo)

Answer 10

No. Under the common law of assault, a threat to batter someone at a future time is not a threat of imminent battery and, therefore, is not sufficient to constitute assault. Assault requires that the victim apprehend that the battery is about to occur, without delay.

Question 11

What is the difference between assault and battery, as defined at common law? (Q) (Russo)

Answer 11

The difference between assault and battery, as defined at common law, is that battery requires actual physical contact, and assault does not.

Question 12

Under the common law, what is kidnapping? (Russo)

Answer 12

(1) Unlawful asportation of the victim
(2) Forcibly or by threat of fear or deception
(3) For a nefarious purpose/intent

Question 13

In the context of the crime of kidnapping, what is the meaning of the term asportation? (Q) (Russo)

Answer 13

In kidnapping, asportation refers to the movement of the victim from one location to another.

Question 14

Can a person commit a kidnapping without moving the victim from one location to another? (Q) (Russo)

Answer 14

Yes. A person can commit a kidnapping by either unlawfully moving the victim or unlawfully confining the victim. The perpetrator need not do both, but the movement or confinement must be against the victim’s will.

Question 15

What is the Garza test? (Russo)

Answer 15

The Garza test is a four-part test to determine whether movement of the victim constitutes asportation.

Question 16

Under the common law, what is larceny? (Russo) (Q)

Answer 16

Under the common law, larceny is:
(1) the unlawful
(2) taking and
(3) carrying away of
(4) another’s property
(5) with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of it.

Question 17

Under the common law, under what circumstances does larceny by trick occur? (Q) (Russo)

Answer 17

Under the common law, larceny by trick occurs if a defendant gains possession of the property of another by fraud, deceit, or trick. This method of gaining possession of the property of another satisfies the crime’s requirement of a trespassory taking.

Question 18

What is the actus reus for larceny? (Q) (Russo)

Answer 18

The actus reus for larceny consists of taking personal property lawfully belonging to another person and carrying it away, without legal right. A taking occurs when the defendant exercises control over the property. To meet the requirement that the defendant carry away the property, even the slightest movement of the property will suffice, so long as every portion of the property has moved.

Question 19

Is the modern common-law view of larceny limited to the taking of chattels? (Q) (Russo)

Answer 19

No. The modern common-law view of larceny is not limited strictly to chattels. Instead, most jurisdictions extend larceny to the taking of

anything that can be moved, including items severed from real property;
documents or other papers that represent intangible rights; and
utilities, such as gas and electricity.
Historically, common-law larceny was limited to chattels, and the theft of services did not constitute larceny. Most modern jurisdictions either include services in the definition of larceny or define theft of services as a separate crime.

Penley v. Commonwealth (Stealing utilities is bad?)

Question 20

Under the common law of larceny, is contraband considered the property of another? (Q) (Russo)

Answer 20

Yes. Under the common law of larceny, contraband, or property that a person otherwise unlawfully possesses, is considered the property of another. Thus, it can be larceny to steal stolen property from a thief or illegal drugs from their owner.

Question 21

What specific intent must a defendant possess to satisfy the mens rea for larceny? (Q) (Russo)

Answer 21

To satisfy the mens rea for larceny, the defendant must possess the intent to permanently deprive the victim of the stolen property. The taking of property for a temporary purpose, with a bona fide intention of returning the property to the owner, does not amount to larceny.

Question 22

Under the common law, may a defendant be convicted of larceny for receiving property that was delivered by mistake? (Q)

Answer 22

Yes. Under common law, a defendant may be convicted of larceny for receiving property delivered by mistake if the defendant (1) knew of the mistake and (2) intended to keep the property. If the defendant knew the property was misdelivered and at that moment intended to keep it, the defendant committed larceny. In contrast, if the defendant initially did not intend to keep the property and later decided to keep it, he has not committed larceny, because he lacked the intent to deprive the rightful owner permanently upon taking possession. If the defendant initially believed the property was correctly delivered and only later learned the property was misdelivered, he has not committed larceny regardless of his intent, because there was no trespassory taking. In short, the defendant’s intent to keep the property must coincide with his receipt for misdelivered property to be a basis for common-law larceny.

Question 23

Under the common law, what is robbery? (Q) (Russo)

Answer 23

Under the common law, robbery is:
(1) the unlawful
(2) taking and
(3) carrying away of
(4) another’s property
(5) from the owner’s person or presence
(6) by force or intimidation
(7) with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of it.

Question 24

What additional elements differentiate a robbery from a larceny? (Q)

Answer 24

Common-law robbery is larceny with the two additional elements of (1) taking from the owner’s person or presence (2) by force or intimidation.

Question 25

Under the common law of robbery, is there a specific distance that determines if property is in the person or presence of another? (Q) (Russo)

Answer 25

No. Under the common law of robbery, there is no specific distance that determines if property is in the person or presence of another. Rather, most courts interpret this element to mean that the property must have been close enough that the victim could have prevented the taking but for the robber’s use of force or intimidation.

Question 26

What is the general common-law definition of extortion? (Q)

Answer 26

The general common-law definition of extortion usually includes some combination of the following elements:

(1) obtaining or attempting to obtain
(2) property or some other financial benefit
(3) by threatening the victim
(4) with some future harm.

Liability is not predicated on the threat being capable of being carried out. Extortion is sometimes called blackmail.

Question 27

How do most modern criminal codes define burglary? (Q)

Answer 27

Most modern criminal codes define burglary as:

(1) the unlawful entry
(2) of a building or other structure
(3) with the intent to commit any crime therein.

Question 28

What is the mens rea for burglary? (Q)

Answer 28

To satisfy the mens rea for burglary, the defendant must illegally enter a space with the intent to commit a crime in that space.

Question 29

For kidnapping purposes, what does asportation require? (Russo)

Answer 29

Asportation requires movement that substantially isolates the victim from protection or potential rescue. (Goolsby v. State)

Question 30

What are the Garza factors? (Russo)

Answer 30

(1) Duration of movement
(2) Whether the movement occurred during the commission of a separate offense
(3) Whether such movement was inherent part of that separate offense
(4) Whether the movement itself presented a significant danger to the victim independent of the danger posed by the separate offense