Berkeley Legal Studies 170

Front 1

actual possession

Back 1

physical possession; on the possessor's person

Front 2

actus reus

Back 2

the criminal act or the physical element in criminal liability, “guilty act”

Front 3

american bystander rule

Back 3

there is no legal duty to rescue or call for help to aid someone who is in danger even if helping poses no risk whatsoever to the potential rescuer

Front 4

Causation

Back 4

concurrence between criminal conduct and criminal result

Front 5

concurrence

Back 5

the requirement that actus reas must join with mens rea to produce criminal conduct or that conduct cause a harmful result

Front 6

constructive possession

Back 6

legal possession or custody of an item or substance (they must know they possess control even if someone else physically has it)

Front 7

crimes of cause and result

Back 7

crimes in which criminal conduct (the joining of a criminal act with a criminal intent) causes a harm that the law specifically prohibits

Front 8

crime of criminal conduct

Back 8

an act triggered by criminal intent

Front 9

criminal omission

Back 9

two forms: 1) were failure to act or 2) failure to intervene in order to prevent serious harm (statutes, contracts, and special relationships)

Front 10

elements of a crime

Back 10

the parts of a crime that the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt, such as actus reus, mens rea, concurrence, causation, and harmful result

Front 11

general principles of criminal liability

Back 11

the theoretical foundation for the elements of actus reus, mens rea, concurrence, causation, and harm

Front 12

good samaritan doctrine

Back 12

doctrine that imposes a legal duty to render or summon aid for imperiled strangers

Front 13

harmful result

Back 13

a harm defined by criminal law

Front 14

knowing possession

Back 14

awareness of physical possession

Front 15

manifest criminality

Back 15

the requirement in law that intentions have to turn into criminal deeds to be punishable; can't just punish intention

Front 16

mens rea

Back 16

the mental element in crime, including purpose, knowledge, recklessness, and negligence; “guilty mind”

Front 17

mere possession

Back 17

physical possession but not knowing what they possess

Front 18

“but for” causation

Back 18

the actor's conduct sets in motion a chain of events that, sooner or later, leads to a result

Front 19

cause in fact

Back 19

actual cause of a harmful result

Front 20

circumstantial evidence

Back 20

indirect evidence; evidence in which an inference is required to connect it to a conclusion of fact

Front 21

constructive intent

Back 21

intent in which the actors do not intend any harm but should have known that their behavior created a high risk of injury; such as drinking and driving

Front 22

culpability

Back 22

blameworthiness based on mens rea

Front 23

factual causation

Back 23

(“but for”) conduct that in fact leads to a harmful result (ex throwing a cigarette leads to fire); will not be proven if the result would have happened regardless of the initial act
general intent – the defendant intended to do the act prohibited by law, but may not have known the precise harm of the action(s)

Front 24

intervening or supervening cause

Back 24

the cause that either interrupts a chain of events or substantially contributes to a result; causes the initial criminal to no longer be liable

Front 25

legal causation

Back 25

cause recognized by law imposed criminal liability (main cause of crime)

Front 26

negligence

Back 26

the unconscious creation of substantial and unjustifiable risk; not knowing what you are doing is wrong even though you should

Front 27

proximate cause

Back 27

The act causing injury must have been the but for cause plus the end result has to be fairly foreseeable to the actor at the time they acted

Front 28

recklessness

Back 28

the conscious creation of substantial and unjustifiable risk; knowing what you're doing may cause harm

Front 29

specific intent

Back 29

the defendant intended the precise harm or the precise result that occurred

Front 30

strict liability

Back 30

liability without fault, or in the absence of mens rea; defendants will be convicted even though they were genuinely ignorant of one or more factors that made their acts or omissions criminal (ex selling alcohol to minors)

Front 31

transferred intent

Back 31

actor intends to harm one victim, but instead harms another; It applies when the second "crime" is of the same basic nature as the first. Thus, if a bullet strikes an unintended victim, both offenses represent personal violence. But, if the bullet misses and breaks a valuable Ming vase, damage to property is of a different class and the intent does not transfer (will instead be charged with something else)

Front 32

accessory

Back 32

the party liable for separate, lesser offenses following a crime

Front 33

accomplices

Back 33

the parties liable as principals before and during the crime

Front 34

doctrine of complicity

Back 34

This doctrine establishes the conditions under which an individual can be held criminally liable for someone else’s conduct.
At common law, there were 4 types of parties to crime:
1)principals in 1st degree—persons who actually commit a crime
2)principals in 2nd degree—persons present when crimes are committed (lookouts, drivers, etc.)
3)accessories before the fact—persons NOT present but help prior to the commission of the crime (i.e., provide weapons, blueprints, etc.)
4)accessories after the fact—persons who help after crimes are committed (harboring a fugitive, obstructing justice)
Today, we have two general types of parties to crime:
1)accomplices—participants before and during the crime
2) accessories—participants after crimes are committed

Front 35

mere presence rule

Back 35

that a person's presence at the scene of a crime doesn't by itself satisfy the actus reus requirement of accomplice liability

Front 36

pinkerton rule

Back 36

the rule that conspiracy and the underlying crime are separate offenses

Front 37

respondeat superior

Back 37

the doctrine that employers are responsible for their employee's actions

Front 38

vicarious liability

Back 38

the principle regarding liability for another based on relationship

Front 39

attempt

Back 39

taking steps toward, but not completing a crime

Front 40

equivocality approach

Back 40

the theory that attempt actus reus requires an act that can have no other purpose than the commission of a crime

Front 41

conspiracy

Back 41

agreeing to commit a crime

Front 42

extraneous factor

Back 42

a condition beyond the attempter's control

Front 43

factual impossibility

Back 43

the defense that some extraneous factor makes it impossible to complete a crime (ex: wife wanted to poison husband's drink but accidentally added sugar instead – attempted murder)

Front 44

inchoate offenses

Back 44

offenses based on crimes not yet completed; conduct deemed criminal without actual harm being done such as conspiracy

Front 45

legal impossibility

Back 45

the defense that what the actor attempted was not a crime

Front 46

model penal code standard

Back 46

the precept that attempt actus reus requires substantial steps or action that strongly suggest that attempters are determined to commit crimes.

Front 47

physical proximate doctrine

Back 47

the principle that the number of remaining acts in attempt determines attempt actus reus; the criminal law punishes conduct when it reaches a “dangerous proximity to success” or how close the actor's conduct has come to completing the crime

Front 48

probable desistance approach

Back 48

an approach that considers whether the act in attempt would naturally lead to the commission of the crime; this considers whether the attempt would naturally lead to commission but for some timely interference not related to bad luck

Front 49

solicitation

Back 49

trying to get someone to commit a crime

Front 50

wharton's rule

Back 50

the principe that more that two parties must conspire to commit crimes that naturally involve at least two parties

Front 51

affirmative defense

Back 51

a defense in which the defendant bears the burden of production such as for self defense.

Front 52

alibi

Back 52

a defense that places defendants in a different place from the scene at the time of the crime

Front 53

burden of persuasion

Back 53

the responsibility to convince the fact finder of the truth of the defense

Front 54

burden of production

Back 54

the responsibility to introduce initial evidence to support a defense

Front 55

burden of proof

Back 55

the responsibility to produce the evidence to persuade the fact finder

Front 56

castle exception

Back 56

the principle stating that defenders have no need to retreat when attacked in their homes

Front 57

choice of evils defense or principle of necessity

Back 57

defense of making the right choice, namely choosing the lesser of two evils

Front 58

defenses

Back 58

justifications and excuses to criminal liability

Front 59

excuse

Back 59

a defense admitting wrongdoing without criminal responsibility

Front 60

imperfect defense

Back 60

defense reducing but not eliminating criminal liability

Front 61

justification

Back 61

a defense deeming acceptable under the circumstances what is otherwise criminal conduct

Front 62

mitigating circumstances

Back 62

facts that reduce but do not eliminate culpability

Front 63

motive

Back 63

the reason why a defendant commits a crime

Front 64

perfect defense

Back 64

a defense that leads to outright acquittal

Front 65

preponderance of the evidence

Back 65

this means that more than 50 percent of the evidence in a civil (non-criminal) lawsuit proves justification or excuse; just enough evidence to make it more likely than not that the fact the claimant seeks to prove is true

Front 66

retreat rule

Back 66

you have to retreat, but only if you reasonably believe that backing off won't unreasonably put you in danger or death or serious bodily harm

Front 67

self-defense

Back 67

the use of force to prevent attacks against individuals, their homes, and their property.

Front 68

Stand-your-ground-rule

Back 68

says that if you didn't start the fight, you can stand your ground and kill

Front 69

civil commitment

Back 69

the government can invoke its power to lock up dangerous people by means of the noncriminal proceeding

Front 70

diminished capacity

Back 70

mental capacity less than “normal” but more than “insane”

Front 71

duress or compulsion

Back 71

when people are forced to commit crimes that they do not want to do

Front 72

Durham rule or product test of insanity

Back 72

an insanity test to determine whether a crime was a product of mental disease or defect

Front 73

entrapment

Back 73

government actions that induce individuals to commit crimes that they otherwise would not commit; this occurs if three conditions are fulfilled:
1) The idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime.
2) Government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving him the opportunity to commit the crime is not the same as persuading him to commit the crime.
3)The person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before the government agents spoke with him.

Front 74

irrebuttable presumption

Back 74

a conclusive assumption that requires a finding of a presumed fact once the fact is introduced into evidence; ex: children under 7 can not form criminal intent

Front 75

irresistible impulse test

Back 75

tests impairment of the will that makes it impossible to control the impulse to do wrong

Front 76

objective test of entrapment

Back 76

tests the level of government involvement in the criminal actions to determine if the officers acted in such a way that they would, in a usual case, affirmatively create crime where none would have existed without their actions

Front 77

M'Naghte rule or right-wrong test

Back 77

a defense pleading insanity due to mental disease or defect that impairs capacity to distinguish right from wrong

Front 78

rebuttable presumption

Back 78

an assumption made by a court, one that is taken to be true unless someone comes forward to contest it and prove otherwise

Front 79

subjective test of entrapment

Back 79

a test which looks at the defendant's state of mind; entrapment can be claimed if the defendant had no "predisposition" to commit the crime

Front 80

substantial capacity test

Back 80

insanity due to mental disease or defect impairing the substantial capacity of either to appreciate the wrongfulness of conduct or to conform behavior to the law

Front 81

adequate provocation rule

Back 81

the rule that only certain defined circumstances will reduce murder to voluntary manslaughter; provocation is said to be adequate if it would cause a reasonable person to lose self-control

Front 82

capital murder

Back 82

first-degree murders for which the penalty is either death or life imprisonment
criminal homicides – homicides that are neither justified nor excused

Front 83

“depraved-heart” murder

Back 83

deaths resulting from purposely or consciously creating substantial and unjustifiable risks that someone will either die or suffer serious injury (ex: russian roulette)

Front 84

deliberate

Back 84

meeting the requirement in murder mens rea that killings must be committed with a cool, reflecting mind

Front 85

excusable homicides

Back 85

accidental killings and killings while insane

Front 86

felony murder

Back 86

deaths occurring during the commission of felonies

Front 87

fatal death statues

Back 87

laws defining when life begins for purposes of the law of criminal homicide

Front 88

first–degree murder

Back 88

premeditated, deliberate killings and other particularly heinous capital murders

Front 89

gross criminal negligence

Back 89

very great negligence; actions without even slight care but not amounting to intentional or conscious wrongdoing

Front 90

homicide

Back 90

the killing of one live human being by another

Front 91

involuntary manslaughter

Back 91

criminal homicides caused either by reckless or gross criminal negligence

Front 92

justifiable homicides

Back 92

killing in self-defense, capital punishment, and police use of deadly force

Front 93

malice aforethought

Back 93

the common-law designation for murder mens rea that covered broad range of state of mind; the predetermination to do an unlawful act

Front 94

negligent homicide

Back 94

unintentional killings in which actors should have known they were creating substantial and unjustified risks of death by conduct that grossly deviated from ordinary care

Front 95

paramour rule

Back 95

the rule that a husband's witnessing his wife in the act of adultery is adequate provocation to reduce murder to manslaughter

Front 96

second-degree murder

Back 96

a catchall offense including killings that are neither manslaughter nor 1st degree murder

Front 97

voluntary manslaughter

Back 97

intentional killings committed in the sudden heat of passion upon adequate provocation

Front 98

year-and-a-day rule

Back 98

the rule that no act occurring more than one year and one day before death is the legal cause of death