• Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

Card Range To Study

through

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/32

Click to flip

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;

32 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
Robbery (elements)
1. Taking & carrying away
2. Of the personal property of another
3. from the others person or presence,
4. by force or intimidation.
Fourth Amendment Rights
...Prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures AND the exclusionary rule requiring that the result of a violation of this prohibition NOT be used as evidence against the Defendant.
Fifth Amendment Rights
(2)
* 5th Amend. priviledge against compulsory self-incrimination.

* The 5th Amend. prohibition against double jeapardy.
Sixth Amendment Rights
(6)

* 6th Amend. Right to a speedy trial
* 6th Amend. Right to a Public trial
* 6th Amend. Right to a Trial by Jury
* 6th Amend. Right to Confront Witnesses
*6th Amend. Right to Compulsory process for obtaining witnesses
* 6th Amend. Right to Assistance of counsel
(IN Felony cases)
(and in Misdemeanor cases in which imprisonment is imposed)
Fourth Amend. Exclusionary Rule
..."Fruit of the Poisonous Tree"
Fruit of the Poisonous Tree:

* Generally, not only must
ILLEGALLY OBTAINED EVIDENCE be excluded, but also ALL EVIDENCE OBTAINED or DERIVED from exploitation of that evidence.
(The Courts deem such evidence the tainted fruit of the poisonous tree)
Automobile Stops

* Is it a "seizure?"
* Can police stop a car without reasonable suspicion?
Yes, stopping a car is a "seizure" for 4th Amend. purposes.
- Thus, generally, police may NOT stop a car unless they have atleast REASONABLE SUSPICION to believe that a law has been violated.
Automobile stops

*Roadblocks" for illegal drugs,
permissable?
No. The police may NOT set up roadblocks to check cars for illegal drugs.
(bc the nature of such a checkpoint is to detect evid. of ordinary criminal wrongdoing that is UNRELATED to use of cars or highway safety.
(Per the Ct., if suspicionless stops were allowed under these circumstances, all suspicionless seizures would be justified.)
Criminal Attempt consists of:
(SLAP)
1. A SPECIFIC intent to commit the target offense.

2. LEGAL IMPOSSIBILITY v. FACTUAL Impossibility

3. An Act that constitutes a
"SUBSTANTIAL STEP" in the commission or attempted commission of the crime, BEYOND mere PREPARATION.
(Apparent Ability)
4. PREPARATION and dangerously close to perpetration of the crime.
Accomplice Liability (Guilt)
Accomplice Liability (Guilt)

Accomplice liability extends to acts of the principal in the first degree which were a "natural and probable consequence" of the criminal scheme that the accomplice encouraged or aided.
What is the accomplice liability to a felony murder?
As long as the underlying felony was a "natural and probable consequence" of the criminal scheme the accomplice encouraged or aided, then the accomplice is guilty under the FMR also.
(Example: It is foreseeable that one of the felons might use violence to avoid being caught. Therefore, FMR is one of the scenarios in which an unintended killing constitutes murder.)
Accomplice Liability -

What constitutes an effective withdrawal by the accomplice from the crime?
In order to effectuate withdrawl from the crime, the Accomplice must:

1. Repudiate his prior aid, or
2. Do all that is possible to COUNTERMAND his prior aid or counsel, and
3. Do so BEFORE the chain of events become unstoppable.
When can a Defendant's WAIVER of his MIRANDA rights (right to silence) be EFFECTIVE?
When the expressed or implied waiver is VOLUNTARY
(waiver based on voluntariness as determined by the "totality of the circumstances".
- AND must be a KNOWING and INTELLIGENT waiver.

To determine if a KNOWING AND INTELLIGENT WAIVER has occured, the court views both
1. The COMPETENCE OF the DEFENDANT;
2. The CONDUCT OF the POLICE.
(#47 Pmbr Foundations green book)


To determine if a KNOWING and INTELLIGENT WAIVER of Miranda rights has occured the court views what?
Both:
1. The COMPETENCE OF the Defendant (age, experience, intelligence & ability to understand the warnings)
AND
2. The CONDUCT OF the POLICE
(whether there has been overreaching)
(#47 Pmbr Foundations green book)

Examples of when Defendant's WAIVER of his MIRANDA rights (silence, etc.) was NOT Effective:
- When the Defend. is subjected to persistent questioning for two hours before receiving his MIRANDA Warnings.
- The Courts have held waivers invalid where the Defend. has been HELD IN CUSTODY for an EXTENDED period of time Before being given Miranda Warnings.
(#49 PMBR Found. green book)

Double Jeopardy
- a 5th Amend. right which PROHIBITS a RETRIAL after a determination of the merits has been made.

- BARS REPROSECUTION for the SAME OFFENSE AFTER there has been a FINAL JUDGMENT.
Res Judicata
(Relates to CIVIL cases)
- Bars RE-LITIGATION of a CLAIM (e.g. Negligence)
AFTER a FINAL Judgment.
Collateral Estoppel
"issue preclusion"

- Once an ISSUE (such as Defendant's identity) has been LITIGATED, the SAME ISSUE CANNOT be LITIGATED again by the SAME PARTIES.
CL Conspiracy
An agreement between two or more persons to commit an unlawful act.
CL Conspiracy

Modernly, Conspiracy requires...
Agreement btwn two or more persons to commit an unlawful act.

An overt act in furtherance of the agreement is required.
Pinkerton Rule
(Co-Conspirator Guilt/Liability)

* All co-conspirators are liable for any crimes IN FURTHERANCE of the original conspiracy agreement.
Felony Murder Rule - Under the Pinkerton Rule
(Premise: Defendant may also be convicted of Felony Murder)

* The killing of an innocent person, during an inherently dangerous felony (robbery) is a foreseeable reult, and all participants in the underlying felony may be convicted of felony murder.
Distinction between SOLICITATION and CONSPIRACY
Solicitation: It is only necessary that the Def. entice, advise, incite, order or encourage another person to commit a crime with the intent that the crime be committed.

However, CONSPIRACY requires an agreement between 2 or more persons to commit a criminal offense. (There has to be an AGREEMENT to both do an unlawful act, not just Solicit someone to do the act for defendant).
Example:
Def. agrees to help impede apprehension of B, by allowing B to leave the jewels from burglary in Def's attic.

What crime has Def. committed?
Def. will be criminally liable as an ACCESSORY AFTER THE FACT to burglary.
Defense of Withdrawal
(from Conspiracy)
At CL, Withdrawal is NO defense to CONSPIRACY, but may be a defense to subsequent crimes by co-conspirators.

*In order for WITHDRAWAL to be a defense for subseq. crimes:
1. TIMELY Notice must be given to all of the other conspirators
OR notification must be given to law enforcement authorities.

(An attempted withdrawal is INEFFECTIVE because not timely-e.g. they were on their way to bank when def. attempted to notify the police)
False Pretenses occurs when...
a defendant tells a victim a (1) lie of a (2) past or present fact (Not a future fact or promise), which is (3) relied on by the victim and (4) defendant obtains TITLE to the property of the other AND (5) the defendant has INTENT to DEFRAUD the victim.
Attempt

(description & elements)
* An act that, although done with the intention of committing a crime, falls short of completing the crime.
(SLAP)

* An attempt consists of 2 elements:
1. A SPECIFIC INTENT to commit the crime;
AND
2. An OVERT ACT in furtherance of that intent, beyond mere preparation.
- - There are two tests to determine if the ACT requirement has been satisfied:
a. TRADITIONAL Rule-
Proximity Test
* Courts evaluate how close the Def. came to completing the offense.
Here, ATTEMPT REQUIRES AN ACT THAT IS DANGEROUSLY CLOSE TO PERPETRATION.
b. MAJORITY RULE-MODEL PENAL CODE TEST
* The MPC & MOST STATES require that THE ACT CONSTITUTE A "SUBSTANTIAL STEP" in a course of conduct planned to culminate in the commission of the crime.

3. Legal Impossibility v. Factual Impossibility
(Factual impossibility is NOT a defense)
Insanity Tests
M'Naghten Test (Majority view)
Irresistable Impulse
Durham
Insanity Defense -
M'Naghten Test
A defendant is entitled to an acquittal IF
- at the time of committing the Act,
the party was laboring under such a defect of reason from disease of the mind,
as NOT to KNOW the NATURE AND QUALITY OF THE ACT DEF. WAS DOING or if he did know it, HE DID NOT KNOW WHAT HE WAS DOING WAS WRONG.
(Majority view)
(Q#7 PMBR Green Found. Book)

* A def. is paranoid and thinks the victim's shadow is following him everywhere he goes.
The def. shoots at the shadow and kills the victim.

Would the Defendant be found not guilty by reason of insanity under the M'Naghten rule?
Why or why not?

No, because if the def. suffers from delusions (or false beliefs), it is necessary to determine whether (if the facts had been as he believed them to be), his actions would have been criminal.
Here, the def. was not legally justified to fire a gun at the shadow. Because his actions were, in fact, criminal, he cannot avail himself of the M'Naghten defense.
* A def. suffers from schizophrenia. He has a delusion that the victim is trying to kill him. Under the mistaken belief that he is acting in self-defense, the defendant stabs the victim to death.

Would the Defendant be found not guilty by reason of insanity under the M'Naghten rule?
Why or why not?
Yes. This would provide a valid insanity defense, because when a person is operating under an insane delusion, "he must be considered in the same situation as to responsibility as if the facts (with respect to which the delusion exists) were real."
Thus, if under the influence of his delusion, the defendant believes that another person is attempting to take away his life, and he kills that man supposedly in self-defense, he WOULD BE exempt from punishment.
Is Voluntary Intoxication a defense to arson?
No.
As a general rule, VOLUNTARY INTOXICATION is NOT a defense to a "general intent" crime.
-- By definition, Arson is a general intent crime because it does NOT require a specific mental state of intent.
(#10 PMBR Green Found. Book)
Not intending to kill, a defendant, at a party, pushes a nin-year-old child into a wimming pool and the youngster drowns.

Is the defendant most likely to be found guilty of manslaughter rather than murder?
INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER.
The defendant committed a battery (which at common law was a misdemeanor) by pushing the victim into the pool.
- There is no express or implied malice.