Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
81 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
what is the requirement for possession as an act.
|
1. control for a period of time.
2. long enough to terminate the possession. |
|
|
what is the rule for constructive possession
|
close enough to for him to exercise
1. dominion 2. control |
|
|
what are the defenses to only SPECIFIC INTENT crimes
|
1. voluntary intoxication.
2. unreasonable mistake of facts. |
|
|
what is mental state fro malice.
example--common law malice crime |
df acts
1. intentionally or 2. with reckless disregard of an obvious known risk common law malice crime. 1. murder 2. arson. |
|
|
what is mental state for GEN. INtent.
what are some gen. crimes |
def.
df only needs to be aware of factors constituting the crime --jury can infer gen. intent simply from doing the act-- 1. rape 2.kidnapping 3. false imprisonment. 4. battery. |
|
|
what is the model penal code (MPC) mental states.
|
Purposely= consciously desires to bring about the result= df wants to do.
knowingly= df is aware of what he is doing. "knows the result" Recklessly=df is aware of substantial and unjustifiable risk--and does the risk. negligently= should have been aware of the risk and still does it. strict liability= violation but carries no jail time. |
|
|
what is the " but for" causation and the exception to the rule.
|
Df was the cause in fact--the df injuries would have not come about "but for df bad actions"
--exception-- = accelerated clause--intervening cause. |
|
|
what happens here:
v is walking down the street when D steps out of a doorway with a gun says "stop right there, this is a stick up." D rummages through C pockets, Takes V wallet, and runs off. V is still standing in the same spot moments later when he is struck by lighting and killed. WHo is responsible? |
D is responsible but for D action V would not been injured. Therefore, lacking any accelerated intervening event D is responsible for all of V injuries.
|
|
|
What happens here:
Alex stabs V in the stomach, causing a fatal wound that will kill V within 5min. 1min later, D walks by and shoots V in the head, killing him instantly. who is responsible. |
Alex is responsible for V injuries because the but for test. If alex would have not stabbed V would have not been shoot by D a minute later.
But ALex is excused by the accelerated doctrine. IF there is an intervening cause that harms the pl then original df is relieved. Here, D walks by and shoots V in the face. According to the accelerated doctrine this would relieve alex of charges. |
|
|
what are the elements to battery.
|
---general intent---
1. unlawful 2. application of force to another. 3. resulting in either a. bodily injury --or-- b. offensive touching |
|
|
what is the element to assault.
|
---specific intent---
version 1 = attempted battery (a swing and miss) version 2 = 1. intentional creation 2. of reasonable fear in the minds of victim. 3. of imminent bodily harm (fake punch) |
|
|
what is the rule for aggravated assault and battery.
|
1. a weapon
2. victim = child or 3. intent = a. robbery b. rape |
|
|
what is the year to date rule
common law v. MPC majority rule. |
common law rule
--murder = person dies 1yr to date of killing. MPC majority rule= death may occur anytime. |
|
|
what is the element of common law murder.
|
1. intentional causing death
2. of another human being 3. with malice or forethought. -----mental requirement----- 1. an intentional killing 2. d intends to inflict serious bodily harm 3. act w/ extreme recklessness (depraved heart) |
|
|
what is the rule for
1. dangerous weapon 2. transferred intent |
1. dangerous weapon
intentional use of deadly weapon= inference of intent to kill. 2. transferred intent.= transferred intent is allowed |
|
|
what happen:
Dudley shoots alex, intending to kill him. Alex ducks, and Dudley's bullet instead hits V, killing him. Is D guilty of Vic murder? IS D guilty of any crime with respect to Alex? |
1. Yes intent transfer = murder.
2. Yes-attempted murder. |
|
|
what happen:
D shoots at Alex, intending to kill him. Alex ducks, and D's bullet instead hits V. V is wounded, but does not die. 1. Is D guilty of attempted Murder of Alex? 2. IS D guilty of Attempted murder of V? |
1. yes
2. No-vic did not die-intent doesnt transfer. |
|
|
what is the rule for first degree intentional murder
|
any intentional killing committed with.
1. premeditation and 2. deliberation. |
|
|
what is first degree felony murder rule.
|
requires malice.
1. intent to kill ---or--- 2. intent to do great bodily hare ---or--- 3. intentional creation of a high risk of death or great bodily harm |
|
|
what is the necessary intent to killing a peace officer.
what is need and not needed for proof. |
killing a peace officer or corrections officer engaged in the performance of his or her duties is 1st degree murder.
not needed= specific intent to kill need= malice (risk of GBH or reckless disregard for human life + victim was a peace or correction officer.) |
|
|
what is second degree murder.
|
all other forms of murder.
|
|
|
what is the felony murder rule
-----limitation on the rule---- |
def. any killing caused during a commission of or attempt to commit a felony.
------------limitation-------------- any killing caused during the commission of or attempted to commit a felony. ---------limitation------------ 1. df must be GUILTY of the underlying felony. 2. felony must be inherently dangerous. (robbery,rape,arson,mayham,kidnapping) 3. the felony must be separate from killing itself. (therefore: aggravated assault or battery cannot be the underlying crime) 4. killing must take place during the felony or during immediate flight. 5. the death MUST B__FORSEEABLE. 6. the victim must not be a co-felony. |
|
|
what is the rule for vicarious liability.
|
if one of the co-felony is guilty of felony murder rule-all of the co-felon is guilty of felony murder.
--even if a police or bystanders kill them. |
|
|
Dumb and Dumber robs a bank. Dumber sits outside in the getaway car, while Dumb goes into the bank, point the gun at the teller, and says "this is a stick up." IN the following scenario, indicate who
1. Dumb gun goes off accidentally and kills the teller 2. the teller has a heart attack from the fright of seeing dumb's gun, and later dies in the hospital 3. a security guard fires his weapon at Dumb, but the bullet strikes and kills the teller instead. 4. the security guard fires his weapon at Dumb, and Dumb is killed. 5. The teller gives Dumb a bag of money, and Dumb runs outside and jumps into the getaway car. As dumber speeds aways, he collides with the police car racing to the scene, killing the driver. 6. One hour after arriving at the secrete hideout, Dumb drives to 7-11 for coffee. En route, he runs a red light and kills a pedestrian lawfully crossing the street. |
1. both dumb and dumber is guilty under the felony murder rule.
2. Both death is from the flight of felony and the deaths were foreseeable and therefore they are both guilty. 3. both are the approximate cause of the death under the felony murder rule. 4. No-one is guilty b/c dumb is a co-felony. 5. both are guilty because the deaths are a result of felonies fleeing from a felony. 6. No one because the felony has reached a safe temporary safe place. ----felony has ended. |
|
|
what are the offenses for felony that qualify as felony murder rule.
|
kevin caters lavish victory celebrations honoring totally awesome soldiers returning after capturing enemy bases.
Kidnapping Child abuse Larceny Vulnerable adults abuse Car jacking Home invasion Torture Arson Substance abuse Robbery Arson Criminal sexual conduct Extortion Breaking and entering intent---- depraved heart-dont care (negligence) GBH intent to kill |
|
|
what is the def. for voluntary manslaughter.
common law----- v. mi---------------- |
1. an intentional killing
2. committed in the heat of passion 3. after adequate provocation. ------examples------ a. serious assault b. battery c. presently witnessed d. witnessed adultery. ------------------------------------ mi = usually insulting words are not enough = but may be enough if df did not 1. have time to cool off 2. did not actually cool off btwn the provocation and the killing. |
|
|
what in the rule for involuntary manslaughter.
v. mi----------------- |
def.
= a killing committed with criminal negligence or = a killing committed during the commission of a misdemeanor or= a felony that does not qualify for felony murder. ---------------------- mi a. gross negligence. or b. result of unlawful act committed 1. w/intent to injure --or-- 2. in gross negligent manner that proximate causes death. |
|
|
what is the diff.
1. murder 2. manslaughter 3. criminal negligence. |
1. murder = 2 mental state
a. purposely or knowingly b. reckless disregard for under the circumstances for human life. 2. manslaughter =2 mental states a recklessly b purposefully or knowingly under PROVOCATION of extreme emotional disturbance. 3. Criminally negligent homicide: one mental state = killing negligent= df should have known of a substantial and unjustifiable risk of death. |
|
|
what is the rules for false imprisonment.
|
--mental state--= general intent
1. unlawful 2. confinement of a person 3. w/o his consent |
|
|
what is the rule for kidnapping
|
---mental state= gen. intent---
1. false imprisonment 2. = moving the victim or concealing the victim in a secret place. |
|
|
what is the rule for aggravated kidnapping.
vs. mi |
1. false imprisonment
2. = moving the victim or concealing them. --for purpose of a. ransom or b. rape or c. hostage or d. robbery or e. victim is a child. ------------------------- mi person knowingly and without consent, confines, or restrict the movement of 3rd party with intent to 1. collect ransom or 2. hostage or 3. criminal sexual act or 4. takes that person outside of mi 5. hold that person for involuntary servitude. |
|
|
what is the rule for forcible rape.
|
intent----GEN. intent---
element= 1. sexual intercourse 2.w/o consent. 3. accomplished by a. force or b. threat of force or c. when victim is unconscious 4. any amount of penetration is sufficient for act for forcible rape. |
|
|
what is the rule for statutory rape.
|
mental state--strict liability----
1. sexual intercourse 2. victim under age of consent. |
|
|
what is larceny.
---caveat---- |
1. trespassory
2. taking and 3. caring away 4. tangible 5. personal prop. 6. of another 7. with intent to 8. permanently deprived 9. owner of the use. ----------caveat----- ---erroneous taking rule--- if df erronusly believe that prop. is his = not larceny. |
|
|
what happens here.
D picks up the V cell phone, mistakenly believing that the phone is his. |
No--erroneous taking rule applies here.
|
|
|
D knowingly takes V cell phone From V without V permission, planning to return the cellphone once he's finished using it.
|
Not larceny here because did not intend to permemantly intend to deprive the owner the of use of the prop.
|
|
|
D leases his car to V for 1 yr term. 2 months into the yr, D has a change of mind and decides to take the car back without V permission, knowing that doing so violates the lease agreement.
|
D is committing larceny because V has legal right to the car and V intent to permenantly deprived v of the use of the car.
|
|
|
what is the rule for when the intent to commit larceny has not initially occurred but it occurs later.
|
Continuing trespass= if df wrongfully takes prop. but w/o the intent to steal, he will not be guilty of larceny,
but if df later forms the intent to steal, the initial trespassory taking is considered to have "continued" and will be guilty of larceny. |
|
|
what happens here:
D knowingly takes V cell phone form V bag without V permission, Planning to return the cell phone once he finishes with it. After using it, however, D decides that V phone is so nice, he's going to keep it. IS D guilty of larceny. |
Not initially because there was no intent to permanently deprive the owner of the use.
---but the continuing trespass occurred when he changed his mind--- = therefore, larceny. |
|
|
what is the rule for embezzlement
|
--mental= intent to defraud--
def. Conversion of personal prop. of another by person already in lawful possession of that prop. with intent to defraud. diff.= df must already in lawful custody. |
|
|
what happens:
1. A bank president wrongfully writes himself a check on the bank's acct. 2. a bank teller wrongfully takes 1k from cash drawer. 3. the curator of the art museum sell a 50k painting entrusted to his care w/o the asking the owner permission. The curator intends to buy the painting back after doubling 50k from the sale by playing blackjack in vegas. Unfortunately he lost all the money. |
Nothing-
not embezzlement = intended to return. not larceny because he had legal right. |
|
|
what is the rule for false pretense.
|
df gets title.
def. obtaining by title to PERSONAL PROP. of another by an intentional false statement --w/intent to defraud-- = false statement = must be present/past--not future promise. |
|
|
what happens:
D says to V "if you give me your cell phone, i will write you a 100 check on my new checking acct." D knows that the checking acct is empty. V agrees to the deal gives D the cell phone in return for a 100 check. |
yes.
1. there was intent to defraud. 2. deal was made to do such thing. 3. false pretense was used to get personal prop. |
|
|
what happens
D says to V "if you give me your cell, i will give you 100 cash tomorrow." D has no intention of paying the $$. V agrees to the deal and gives D the cell phone. |
no
--this was a future promise and are not under false pretense. |
|
|
what is the rule for larceny by trick.
|
df only gets custody.
if the liar only get custody (no title) as a result of intentional false statement = larceny by trick. |
|
|
D say to V " if you lend me your cell phone for 1 wk" i will write you a 20 check on my new checking acct." D knows that the checking acct is empty. V agrees to the deal. D the cell phone is in return for 20 checking acct.
|
this is larceny by trick
b/c df only got custody. |
|
|
what is the element for robbery
|
---mental state--specific intent to steal---
a. larceny b. from another person or presence. c. by force or threat of immediate injury. **force=any amount sufficient to overcome resistance of victim is sufficient** |
|
|
what happens here:
person who obtains the prop. of another through oral or written threats of the future harm. |
this is extortion.
|
|
|
What is the rule for armed robbery.
----mi---- |
at time of taking df must be
1. armed with a dangerous weapon or 2. an object that was not ordinary dangerous but was used as one. 3. object that was reasonably looked to be dangerous weapon (toy gun) 4. intent to commit larceny 5. by threat of force or force. 6. from another or in the presence of. --punishable by sentence up to life----- |
|
|
what is the rule for forgery.
|
1. making or altering a writing.
2. so that it is false. mental state=specific intent to defraud. |
|
|
what happens here:
1. D needs 100 fast, so he takes V checkbook, writes out a 100 check to himself, and signs V name on the check. 2. D then cashes the check and receives the 100. |
1. forgery.
--false writing w/ intent to defraud. 2. false pretense-b/c obtaining title. |
|
|
what is the modern trend.
crime takings |
Consolidation:
Modern Statutory approach to prop. crimes is Consolidation 1. larceny 2. embezzlement 3. false pretense 4. larceny by trick into a single offense = theft under these statutory approaches, the seriousness of the crime will be determined by the value of the prop. taken. |
|
|
what is the common law rule for burglary.
|
1. Breaking
---can be "constructive breaking= entry gained through fraud, threats or intimidation" and 2. entering 3. the dwelling of another 4. at night 5. with intent of committing 6. felony inside. |
|
|
what is the modern statute do with common law burglary.
|
they have eliminated the technical requirements of
(breaking and entering at night and dwelling) |
|
|
what is Mi statute for common law burglary.
|
they have done away with burglary all together and simply in favor of:
1. home invasion and 2. breaking and entering. |
|
|
D mistakenly believes that V has stolen his laptop comp. So D breaks into V's house at night and takes V laptop.
what has occurred here. |
Nothing--
there was no intent to commit prior to entering the house. --getting possession that rightfully belongs to you negates and the felony-- |
|
|
D breaking and entering----
While inside the house, D sees V laptop, decides to steal it. what happens. |
Nothing---
no burglary took place here b/c there was not an intent to commit a felony before entering into the house. --once inside and changes the mind does not = burglary. |
|
|
what is the rule for common law arson.
vs. Mi |
state of mind---malice---
def. malicious burning of a building. ---burning--- 1. material wasting and 2. it must be the building itself that burns -------------Mi--------------- a. dwelling b. burning (even if your own house) Mi arson= "any person, including the owner, intentionally burns a house that is used as a dwelling house." |
|
|
what is the rule for accomplice liability.
v. mi |
1. aids or encourages the principal
2. with specific intent that crime be committed ----------mi---------- 1. dont need intent, enough that they act. 2. with knowledge of principal's intent. ----if the crime is negligent or the = only need to know that harm is foreseeable = liability.--- **accomplice is guilty of all the crime that principal does and everything that is foreseeable as if he was doing the crime himself.** |
|
|
what is the rule for withdrawl
|
a. encourager can withdrawl by simply discouraging the crime (before it is committed)
or b. neutralize the assistance or prevent the the crime from happening. (including notifying the police) |
|
|
what is the common law approach to accessory after the fact.
|
element:
1. help the principal who has committed the felony. 2. with knowledge of the crime. 3. with intent to help principal avoid arrest or conviction. |
|
|
what is the rule for solicitation
|
def. asking someone to commit a crime with the intent that the crime be committed.
---mental state = specific intent-- completion is not neccessary= the crime here is asking. |
|
|
what is the rule for conspiracy.
--what is the Mi rule for conspiracy-- |
def.= agreement btwn 2 or more people to commit a crime + an overt act in furtherance of the crime.
1. planning of a crime + 2. overt act in furtherance of a crime. -------------MI-------------- specific intent: 1. agreement + 2. overt act. (completion not necessary) |
|
|
can one person be guilty of conspiracy.
|
Under the modern rules no
--MPC= yes=unilateral approach = all df may be guilty of conspiracy even though all other parties were acquitted or pretending to agree. |
|
|
what is the defense to conspiracy.
|
when the acts needs 2 or more people to accomplish it.
--then there can be no such agreement if there is only one person doing the act. --wharton rule-- |
|
|
Du and Do agree to kill V. Unbeknownst to Du, Do is actually an undercover FBI agent. Du is arrested while he is preparing to kill V.
Is Du guilty of conspiracy. |
Common law - no need to parties.
Under MPC- yes unilateral rule. |
|
|
what is the vicarious liability of a crime called.
|
Pinkerton rule.
if the crime 1. furtherance of the crime with co-conspirator 2. and acts were foreseeable. |
|
|
what is the rule for attempted
|
1. overt act
2. conduct get very close. --dangerous proximity test--- 3. MPC= conduct constitutes a substantial step towards the commission of the crime. 4. Mi = some direct movement = commission of the crime that would = immediate completion. |
|
|
what happens here.
D wants to kill V. his plan is to shoot V as V is walking home from work. common law. MPC MI. |
--no
--yes = substantial step --no |
|
|
D takes the loaded gun, and drives along the route that V typically uses when he walks him but cant find V.
|
Common= no
MPC = yes Mi = no |
|
|
Two days later D tries again. This time he see V walking down the street. As D raises his gun, Officer Alex tackles him.
|
Common= yes dangerously close
MPC= substantial movement. Mi= some direct movement. |
|
|
what happens here.
D intends to pick V's pocket, surreptiously puts his hand into V's pocket--but the pocket is empty. D is charged with attempted larceny. what occurs here. |
1. this factual impossibility.
2. D is guilty because factual impossibility is never a defense. |
|
|
D is arrested when an undercover cop sees him and gives A 100 for a cashmere overcoat that D knows A stole from Macy's. UNbeknownst to D, A had already turned the coat over to the police. under the state law, once stolen prop. is recovered by the police, it is no longer "stolen prop." for the purposes of the crime.
D is charged with attempted receipt of stolent prop. |
1. legal impossibility is a complete legal defense.
2. s D guilty. --common law = no --Mi = yes-impossibility = legal or fact = no defense. |
|
|
what is the M'naughten test
(Purely cognitive test) irresistible impulse test. |
df either.
1. did not know that the act was or 2. did not understand the nature of his act. ---irresistible impulse test--- 1. df was unable to control his act or 2. was unable to control his conduct to the law. |
|
|
what was the MPC test.
criminally insane. |
df could not
1. appreciate the criminality of his conduct or 2. conform his conduct to the requirement of the law. Mi df require to show by preponderance of the evid. |
|
|
what is the rule for involuntary intoxication.
|
can be a defense to any crime.
intoxication must be completely involuntary. |
|
|
what is the rule for voluntary intoxication.
--------mi----------- |
defense to specific intent crimes
--NOt defense to Malice, Gen. intent, strict liability.-- -----mi------ defense if 1. intoxicated resulted from consumption of a legally obtained + properly used med. or other and 2. df did not know or reasonably should not have known that he would be intoxicated. |
|
|
what is the initial aggressor rule.
|
df may not use deadly force if he is the initial agressor
but --can if--- 1. he withdraws from the fight 2. and communicates with the other person. or 3. the victim suddenly escalates the non-deadly fight into the a deadly one. |
|
|
what is the rule for retreat.
|
majority = no need before using deadly force.
minority + mi = need to until reasonably unable to. |
|
|
what is the rule for duress.
|
df was forced to commit a crime because of threat from another.
-----------caveat------- not a full defense if murder. |
|
|
what is the rule for entrapment.
|
1. crime was design originated with gov.
and 2. df was not predisposed to committing the crime himself. |
