10, 11, 12

Front 1

Criminal Liability (Aid and Abbettor)

Back 1

Texas has abolished principals, aiders, abbetters
People are only "parties" i.e. involved in criminal liability

Front 2

Parties to Offenses

Back 2

Commited by himself, or someone else he is responsible for
Each party may be charged with the offense
All traditional distinctions between accomplices are abolished
-each can be convicted without alleging an accomplice

Front 3

Criminal Responsibility of Another

Back 3

Person acting with culpability for the offense
--causes or aids an innocent/nonresponsible person to engage in conduct prohibited by the offense
Acting with INTENT to promote/assist accomplishment of the offense
--solicits/encourages/aids/attempts to aid the other person to commit the offense
Having legal duty to prevent the commission of the offense and acting to promote/assist the offense
--fails to make a reasonable effort to prevent commission of the offense
-

Front 4

Criminal Responsibility (Another Felony)

Back 4

-all are responsible for felony though having no intent to commit so long as it is one that should have been reasonably anticipated

Front 5

Defense Excluded

Back 5

Where responsibility is based on the conduct of another it is NO defense:
--the actor belongs to a class of persons legally incapable of committing the offense
--that the person actually responsible for the action has been acquitted/not been prosecuted/convicted/convicted of a different offense/is immune from conviction

Front 6

Agent

Back 6

Director
Officer
Employee
Anyone Authorized to act in behalf of the corporation/association

Front 7

High Managerial Agent

Back 7

Partner in partnership
Officer of a corporation/association
Agent of corporation of such responsibility that his conduct may be assumed to represent the policy of the corporation/association

Front 8

Criminal Responsibility for a Corporation/Association

Back 8

If offense is done by an agent acting in behalf of the corporation
AND
Within the scope of his office

Front 9

Criminal Responsibility for a Corporation/Association (Felony)

Back 9

Corporation/association responsible for Felony if:
-Authorized/requested/commanded/performed/recklessly tolerated by:
-Majority of governing board
-High managerial agent acting in behalf of corporation/association AND within the scope of his office

Front 10

Criminal Responsibility for Corporation/Association

Back 10

A person is responsible for a crime that he does in the name of a corporation

Front 11

Defense to Criminal Responsibility for Corporation/Association

Back 11

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
-High managerial agent employed due diligence to prevent its commission

Front 12

Justification

Back 12

DEFENSE
-contact in question is justified

Front 13

Defense

Back 13

Defendant bring up, prosecution must negate possibility of defense beyond a reasonable doubt

Front 14

Affirmative Defense

Back 14

Quasi-Justification for defendant's actions
Brought by defendant and proved by him by the preponderance of the evidence

Front 15

Imperfect Defense

Back 15

Does not result in acquittal, just results in a conviction of a lower-included offense
-NOT RECOGNIZED IN TEXAS

Front 16

Necessity

Back 16

Actor reasonably believed the conduct is reasonably necessary to avoid immediate harm
AND
Desirability/urgency of avoiding harm clearly outweighs (according to ordinary standards of reasonableness) the harm the law is trying to prevent,
AND
Legislative purpose to exclude justification claimed for conduct does not plainly appear

Front 17

Duress

Back 17

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
FELONY:
Compelled to do so by threat of imminent death or serious bodily injury to himself or another
IF IT IS NOT A FELONY:
-compelled by force or threat of force
compelled = person of reasonable firmness incapable of resisting pressure

Front 18

Duress (Defense Unavailable)

Back 18

if actor INTENTIONALLY, KNOWINGLY, RECKLESSLY
-placed himself in situation where probable to subject to compulsion

Front 19

Duress (No Defense)

Back 19

that actor acted in compulsion by spouse (unless the compulsion applies in the duress affirmative defense part)

Front 20

Diminished Capacity

Back 20

Texas DOES NOT RECOGNIZE

Front 21

Insanity

Back 21

If actor did not know it was wrong/illegal, then could use affirmative defense
-circumstantial evidence can be used to show that they knew what they were doing was wrong/illegal, and thus showing that the person cannot use the affirmative defense
Texas juries cannot be told the consequences of the acquittal on the basis of insanity

Front 22

Incompetency

Back 22

BARS THE PERSON FROM EVEN GOING TO TRIAL
--i.e. IS NOT A DEFENSE/AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Bars defendant from standing trial so long as he is incompetent
-when he becomes competent he will then stand trial
-people go to mental hospital so they can "gain" competency
----i.e. you cannot keep the incompetency defense so that you can never stand trial

Front 23

Incompetency (Two-Prong Test)

Back 23

Show Both:
-Reasonable and Factual understanding of proceedings against him
-lacks ability to reasonably consult with attorney

Front 24

Self Defense (Ordinary Force)

Back 24

The actor must:
-act reasonably
-believe the act is necessary
---verbal provocation alone is not enough
---person can resist unlawful arrest

Front 25

Self Defense (Deadly Force)

Back 25

The actor must:
-act reasonably
-believe the act is necessary

Front 26

Self Defense (Acting Reasonably)

Back 26

The actor knew (or had reason to know) that the person he used force against:
-unlawfully AND with force:
---entered (or attempted to enter) the actors habitation, vehicle, place of business/employment
---removed (or attempted to remove) the actor from his habitation, vehicle or place of business/employment
OR
-was committing (or attempting to commit) aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery or aggravated robbery
AND
The actor did not provoke the person who the act was made against
AND
The actor was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity (other than a class C misdemeanor of violating a law/ordinance regulating traffic)

Front 27

Self Defense (Action not Justified)

Back 27

-if in response to verbal provocation
-to resist arrest/search that the actor knows is being made by peace officer (or in direction by the peace officer) even if the arrest/search is unlawful unless resist is lawful

Front 28

Self Defense (Resist is Lawful)

Back 28

If before actor resists,
-the peace officer uses greater force than necessary to make the arrest/search
AND
-the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself from the peace officers use (or attempt) of greater force than necessary

Front 29

Self Defense (Deadly Weapon)

Back 29

Same as self defense without a deadly weapon
Plus:
Actor believes use of deadly force is immediately necessary to:
-protect against the other's use of unlawful deadly force
-to prevent the other's imminent commission of:
---aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery

Front 30

Self Defense (Battering Situation)

Back 30

courts are beginning to expand the idea of imminence
Smullen, Fielder

Front 31

Defense of Others

Back 31

Under the circumstances the ACTOR believes the other to be, that other person has the right to self defense
AND
The actor is reasonable in his belief that the intervention is immediately necessary to protect the other person

Front 32

Protection of One's Own Property

Back 32

A person in lawful possession is justified in using force to against another if:
-actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent/terminate the other's trespass or unlawful interference with property

Front 33

Protection of One's Own Property (Unlawfully Disposed)

Back 33

A person unlawfully disposed of property:
-may use force when the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land/recover the property
ONLY IF:
-immediately/hot pursuit after dispossession
-actor reasonably believes he has no other claim of right when dispossessed
OR
-the other person accomplished dispossession through force, threat, or fraud against the actor

Front 34

Protection of One's Own Property (Deadly Force)

Back 34

Actor is justified in using deadly force to protect ones own property only if:
-he would be justified in using force against the other in the protection of ones own property section
AND
-he reasonably believes deadly force is immediately necessary to:
---prevent imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime
OR
---prevent the other from fleeing right after a burglarly, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime
AND
The actor reasonably believes that there is no other way to recover his property
OR
Not using deadly force would expose the actor (or another) to substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury

Front 35

Device to Protect Property

Back 35

Can only use if:
-device not designed to create a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury
AND
-the use of the device is reasonable under all circumstances that the actor could reasonably believe them to be when he installs the device

Front 36

Entrapment

Back 36

IS A DEFENSE
Defendant is actually induced by police by pursuasion or other means likely to cause the person to commit the offense
AND
an ordinary person would have been induced
(Jacobson)
Conduct merely affording a person the opportunity to commit an offense does not constitute entrapment

Front 37

Diminished Capacity

Back 37

Texas does not recognize diminished capacity
---you can only try and show a failure of proof of the state of mind (using mental illness to prove this)

Front 38

Insanity

Back 38

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
M'Naughten Rule
-Actor did not know his actions were illegal
---if actor knew is actions were illegal, then he knew his actions were wrong
------can be established by circumstantial evidence
Texas juries cannot be told about the consequences of acquittal based on insanity

Front 39

Incompetency

Back 39

Rebuttable presumption of competency
-must prove by preponderance of the evidence
NOT A DEFENSE
-only bars the trial from happening (defendant is tried if and when he is competent)
D lacks reasonable and factual understanding of proceedings against him
AND?
D lacks ability to consult with attorney