Specific Intent Crimes Flashcards
Is legal or factual impossibility a defense to an attempt charge?
Only legal impossibility, not factual impossibility, is a defense to an attempt charge.
What is assault?
To establish a prima facie case of assault, a plaintiff must prove (i) that there was an act by the defendant which created a reasonable apprehension in the plaintiff of immediate harmful or offensive contact to the plaintiff’s person; (ii) that there was intent on the part of the defendant to bring about an apprehension of immediate or harmful or offensive contact with the plaintiff’s person; and (iii) causation
What are the elements for false pretenses?
The common law crime of false pretenses requires: (i) obtaining title (obtaining ownership rather than mere possession); (ii) by false misrepresentations (must be intentional false statements); (iii) of past or existing fact (misrepresentation of a future event does not qualify); (iv) with the intent to defraud (the victim must be deceived or must act in reliance of defendant’s false statement in passing title).
Obtaining property through false pretenses is a specific intent crime, so the defendant must have the specific intent to defraud. Further, because it is a specific intent crime, a mistake on the part of the defendant, no matter how unreasonable, is a defense to the crime of false pretenses.
A is correct. Because the crime of false pretenses requires the intent to defraud, the woman cannot properly be found guilty of obtaining property by false pretenses. Even though she made false statements in an effort to obtain the property (the painting), she subjectively believed the painting belonged to her, which negates the intent element.
B is incorrect. This answer reaches the correct answer with the wrong reasoning. The fact that the gallery owner would have sold the painting to anyone who agreed to pay the price does not excuse the woman for knowingly making false statements to obtain property that she would not otherwise have been able to obtain.
C is incorrect. Even where a false pretenses conviction can be based on a promise to make payment in the future if the promisor had no present intent to make the future payment, for a finding of guilty of false pretenses, there must exist the intent to defraud.
D is incorrect. For a finding of guilty for false pretenses, there must be more than knowingly making false representations. A defendant must also have the intent to defraud. The crime of false pretenses requires the intent to defraud. Accordingly, the woman cannot properly be found guilty of obtaining property by false pretenses because she made the false statements to obtain property that she subjectively believed belonged to her.
Whether mistake is a defense to a specific intent crime?
Further, because it is a specific intent crime, a mistake on the part of the defendant, no matter how unreasonable, is a defense to the crime.
Whether voluntary intoxication is a defense to a specific intent crime?
At common law, voluntary intoxication can be the basis for a defense to a specific intent crime if the intoxication negated the requisite mens rea of the offense. In this case, the employee is charged with assault and attempted murder, both of which are specific intent crimes. Assault requires the intent to commit a battery or the intent to create a reasonable apprehension of imminent bodily harm. Attempted murder requires proof that the employee had the intent to kill his boss and took substantial steps toward the commission of the offense. If the employee was unable to form the intent to commit a battery or the intent to commit a murder due to his intoxication, he would have a valid defense to the charge. The evidence of the employee’s intoxication should be admitted without limitation.
B is also correct. The assault was actually brought to fruition by the commission of the battery. By stabbing his boss, the employee did not merely commit an assault; he committed criminal battery. The charge of assault would thus merge into the battery offense, and the evidence of the intoxication should be admitted only to the attempted murder charge.
C is incorrect. The evidence of intoxication may negate the employee’s intent to commit the murder and should be admitted for that purpose.
D is incorrect. Similarly, because the evidence of the intoxication could negate the mental state requirement of the assault charge and the attempted murder, it should be admitted as to both. However, it is also possible that the assault charge merged into a battery, and the evidence of the intoxication should only be admissible to the attempted murder charge.
