Crim

Front 1

Decina

Back 1

epileptic driver

Front 2

martin

Back 2

public intoxication

Front 3

newton

Back 3

killing while unconscious

Front 4

jones v. la

Back 4

being homeless

Front 5

pope v. state

Back 5

statutory duty of care

Front 6

jones v. us

Back 6

status relationship

Front 7

montoya and muro

Back 7

causation v wouldve died anyways

Front 8

acosta

Back 8

two helicopter crash

Front 9

brady

Back 9

two plane crash putting out D's fire

Front 10

arzon

Back 10

two fires: d's conduct does have to be sole cause

Front 11

kibbe

Back 11

sufficient to prove cause if ultimate harm was forseen

Front 12

actus reus

Back 12

voluntary act or omission when there is legal duty

Front 13

mens rea

Back 13

purpose knowledge recklessness negligence

Front 14

causation

Back 14

but for cause + not too remote or accidental

Front 15

murder

Back 15

purpose knowledge or extreme recklessness

Front 16

felony murder

Back 16

extreme recklessness presumed if committing felony

Front 17

Regina v. serne

Back 17

act that is likely in itself to cause death done for purpose of committing felony which causes death is murder

Front 18

State v. Canola

Back 18

agency theory: killing must've been done by D or accomplice in furtehrance of felonies

Front 19

Stamp

Back 19

roximate cause: eggshell skull strictly liable for any deaths committed during felony

Front 20

manslaughter

Back 20

reckless or murder but EED

Front 21

people v. hall

Back 21

ski instructor reckless

Front 22

Wlasnky

Back 22

night club fire reckless

Front 23

negligent homicide

Back 23

negligence,

Front 24

State v. Williams

Back 24

indian baby dies

Front 25

attempt

Back 25

purposely engages in conduct that’s crime if circumstances were as believes them to be or purposely does or omits to cause result, or purposely does or omits a substantial step

Front 26

Defense to attempt

Back 26

abandonment of effort or preventing commision of crime and complete and voluntary renunciation of criminal purpose

Front 27

No abandonment defense to attempt

Back 27

Johnston and McNeal

Front 28

Yes abandonment defense

Back 28

Ross

Front 29

Smallwood

Back 29

no specific intent to murder HIV case no attempt

Front 30

Hinkhouse

Back 30

HIV case specific intent shown attempt

Front 31

Girouard

Back 31

provocation: words alone are insufficient rule based

Front 32

Maher

Back 32

standard based provocation msut be reasonable

Front 33

Bordeaux

Back 33

cooling time if long period between provocation and muder then cannot be defense

Front 34

necessity

Back 34

is truly lesser of two evils as determined objectively by judge/jury and no other exception or defense available but not available if actor was reckless or negligent in bringing situation and calculating necessity

Front 35

Unger

Back 35

no imminence requirement for necessity, expanded to prinson escape

Front 36

Leno

Back 36

direct civil disobedience determined not necessity defense

Front 37

schoon

Back 37

indirect civil disobedienece breaking a different law than one being challenged

Front 38

mistakes

Back 38

of fact if negates mens rea and of law if statute not known or published not available if had things been as he supposed

Front 39

duress

Back 39

if coerced by force, threat to use, unlawful force that a person of reasonable firmness in his situation would not be able to resist, not available if actor recklessly/negligently placed himself in situation in which it was probable that he would be subject to duress

Front 40

Toscano

Back 40

no imminence requirement for duresss

Front 41

self defense and defense of others

Back 41

if actor believes force is immediately necessary but not justifiable if actor provoked the use of harm in same interaction or knows he can avoid force also not abailable if belief is erroneous recklesss or negligent

Front 42

self defense time framing

Back 42

goetz v. zimmerman

Front 43

norman

Back 43

battered woman self defense requires imminence

Front 44

stand your ground statutes

Back 44

permit meeting force with force including deadly force even when retreat is possible if one believes it's necessary to use it to prevent death or great bodily harm

Front 45

perfect v. imperfect self defense

Back 45

reasonably v. honestly but unreasonably believed it was necessary

Front 46

insanity

Back 46

at time of criminal conduct he lacks substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality (cognitive disability) or lacks substantial capacity to conform his conduct to law (volitionaal incpacity)

Front 47

Lyons

Back 47

only accepts cognitive prong

Front 48

m'naghten

Back 48

adds volitional incapacity to insanity

Front 49

durham

Back 49

allows insanity defense whenever D's conduct was product of mental disease or defect

Front 50

intoxication

Back 50

if not self induced or is patholocical then affirmative defnese

Front 51

complicity

Back 51

acting with culpability causes innocent or irresponsible person to engage in conduct and person is accomplice when with purpose solicits, aids, agrees or attempts to aid, or has legal duty to prevent commission but fails to make proper effrots and for result crime must be accomplice and act with culpability regarding result

Front 52

Analysis steps for result crime complicity

Back 52

deterime P's responsibility, whether D solicited aided conduct with purpose, if conduct caused the result of the crime, and if S acted with culpability regarding the result

Front 53

Cannot be accomplice

Back 53

if victim, if conduct is inevitably incident or terminates complicity prior to commission and gives timely warning or makes proper efforts to prevent comission

Front 54

Gladsotone

Back 54

communication is insufficient to show aiding

Front 55

Luparello

Back 55

accomplice can be charged with ofense the principal is charged with as long as it was reasonably foreseeable; asks friends to get info from V at any cost

Front 56

Roy

Back 56

D told undercover cop to talk to K to buy firearm but K decides to rob cop but no accomplice liability for armed robbery bc unforseeable

Front 57

conspiracy

Back 57

with purpose he agrees to the conduct, attempt or solicitation or to aid in planning or committing crime , need overt act unless felony

Front 58

scope of conspiracy

Back 58

if conspirator knows that person hes conpiring with is also conpisring with another person then will be guilty of conspiring with other persons

Front 59

defenses to conspiracy

Back 59

renunciation if after conspiring thwarts the success of conspiracy under circumstances manifesting complete and voluntary renunciation of prupose

Front 60

interstate circuit

Back 60

tacit areement ok for conspiracy, movie theatre anti trust

Front 61

lauria

Back 61

intent can be inferred from knowledge although knowledge alone may be insufficient; phone answering service for prositutes

Front 62

Pinkerton

Back 62

every conspirator liable for any criminal offense committed by co-conspirator in furthernace of conspiracy or whats reasonably foreseeable

Front 63

bridges

Back 63

expands pinkerton to hold liable for things outside scope of conspiracy if foreseeable as natural consequence

Front 64

alvarez

Back 64

narrows pinkerton to charge only non minor conspirators

Front 65

rusk

Back 65

lightly chokes, takes keys, proof of force requird must show either resistence or prevention of resistence, focuses on victim's reasonable fear

Front 66

depetrillo

Back 66

psychological force doesn’t fulfill force requirement

Front 67

mts

Back 67

force inherent to sexual penetration and absence of affirmative consent is sufficient to show non consent

Front 68

mistake of fact defense for frape

Back 68

available if defendnat's error for consent was honest and reasonable

Front 69

sherry

Back 69

defense of mistake of fact not allowed bc mistake must be objectively reasonable woman taken to doctors home

Front 70

fischer

Back 70

not granted mistake of fact but available if reasonably but mistakenly believed that V was consenting to his sexual advances they could find him not guilty